Here’s the cartoon that Geert Wilders is up in airs about recently. See for yourself if it’s worth the outrage:
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Here’s the cartoon that Geert Wilders is up in airs about recently. See for yourself if it’s worth the outrage:
Defend Geert Wilders 
that’s not that bad. All the Muslims I know cept two or three ARE DOUCHEBAGS.
And that’s being POLITE about it.
I agree Ingrid. Looks like a pretty accurate depiction of what Widlers and you are trying to do.
Ingrid may be impolitic and gauche in her remarks, but John is truly ignorant of the cartoons’ implication. The irony is that it is that John either fails to understand the aim of the Islamic leaders in colonizing Europe and America and what it portends, or believes the Leftist mantra of Multiculturalism. Either way, it is John who ultimately will be led to the showers by the Islamic fascists once they acheive their Caliphate, if he does not convert.
Another Leftist idiot, and useful tool of Islamists.
All I can say to this is that everyone should see http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com
here you will see it was MUSLIMS who started an “Air arm” with Hitler in the second world ar to rid the world of Kews.
The mufti of Jerusalem can be seen here examining muslim and german troops as he cogorts with hitler.
The gas chambers and persecutions of jews were devised by both the nazis and the muslims “Mufti”.
There are loads of anti jewish drawings on the web by muslims…. they are hypocrites
Sorry…I messed up that last post!! here it is again.
All I can say to this is that everyone should see http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com
here you will see it was MUSLIMS who started an “Air arm” with Hitler in the second world to rid the world of jews.
The mufti of Jerusalem can be seen here examining muslim and german troops as he cohorts with hitler.
The gas chambers and persecutions of jews were devised by both the nazis and the muslims “Mufti”.
There are loads of anti jewish drawings on the web by muslims…. they are hypocrites
I didn’t realize that Douche meant shower when I first saw this yesterday morning.
I thought it was just (politely) calling mean-spirited, violent, hatefully crazed Muslims = Douches.
(please understand by seeing next comment after this, same day)
It’s absurd and hateful, deliberately lying to even imply that Geert is anything at all like any Nazi.
He is the most fair, kind, tolerant and egalitarian freedom fighter there ever will be.
Nazi is a slur of the worst kind, and it is effective among the masses of retarded people.
Angry American – You are partly correct. I am not a paranoid, fanatic bigot like you, so I don’t artificially inflate the prospects of things like the imminent colonization of the Americas by Islamists as an excuse to support massive political repression of minority groups. You have chosen to characterized that as a “failure to understand”. Heh. Though, yes, I do believe in the “Leftist mantra of multiculturism”. I assume this contrasts with the standard right-wing extremist mantra of “white supremacy 4-evah”. I miss the good old days when paranoid nutters like Angry American directed their delusional fantasies at things like water flouridation instead of the elimination of brown people. Although, he may still think the commies are up to no good on that front too.
Criticism is always a two-edged sword. The Prophet Mohammed Cartoons showed sensitivities and it outraged not millions but hundreds of millions and the west basically said “who cares, it is freedom of speech”. I see no difference, when it comes down to it, that this photo is just as much a “freedom of speech” issue and either Wilders has to accept it or the “who cares” for the Mohammed Cartoons has to be taken out as well.
You cannot have it both ways.
Angry American, never mind anything the liar above ever writes.
He is a born liar and knows it, knows we know it, and doesn’t give a damn.
It’s in his genes.
and thank you for the support
I have been following this debate silently. I have to say that I totally disagree with the assumptions that John is making. But that is his prerogative. It is not a question of right wing or left wing politics. It is a case for common sense. In essence what are we arguing about? Are we to sit silently and witness the end of western civilization? Why? I am not convinced (nor is anyone else) that small numbers of Muslims in the west pose no threat to democratic institutions. To say such a thing John is either unaware or simply ignoring their history. No one is suggesting that Muslims should be got rid off. That would be an impossibility, and unacceptable in an ethical and moral world. All one can justifiably ask of the Muslims if they would abandon some of their Stone Age beliefs, and join the non-Muslim world and support the concept of a free and democratic society, without a religious overhang. This will ensure in the case of the Netherlands, their institutions, laws and their culture remains intact and flourishes for generations to come. I believe that is what Geert Wilders is fighting for and I would say he is right. The problem is Muslims have no central institution like the papacy to guide them through interfaith responsibilities and how to live in harmony with free societal concepts of the 21st century. They are following a Stone Age religious concept, stuck in a time warp. Sorry John for all your eloquence, I will have to say that your arguments just don’t stack up. Let us say we agree to disagree.
Well, well, John , you’re a very liberal multiculturalist, hey? All cultures are equel? Their values ass well? You think it’s okay to denigrate women, kill gays and Jews, long for a theocracy and well, kill all apostates? Well, if that’s the case I think you have indeed very queer values and low standards.
Furthermore, you think the depiction is quite acurate? Do you know where Wilders and his party stands for? Or do you only listen to Leftist hollow rhetotic about his policies? All Wilders does is criticizing the writings and ideology of Islam, not the people. Well, the people who adhere to these writings literally he criticizes of course. These are not extremist but just Ortodox muslims. We don;t call Christians who take the Bible literally extremists, do we? No, we call them orthodox (and crazy, yes, so are those orthodox muslims). He only talks about people who break the law: they should be handeled fiercely, more than the soft approach we have now.
And yes, he is against islamization everywhere in the free world. He and his party wants a total ban on the burqa and a ban for niqabs in government institutions and schools. Personally I would like to see a ban on the niqab for girls untill they are eighteen, because it imprisons their sexuality and personality while it is still in development. They can’t choose such an attack on their person at that age unless their told so or they’ve grown up with that idea.
Yes, Wilders wants a stop for building mosques, at least for a while, and want to close Islamic school, also untill the Islamic community betters itself in teaching values to their students. That’s not only reasonable, but looking at our values absolutely neccessary. How is it possible that we, and especially the women, have fought so long to get our rights from the dictatorships and kings in the past, only to throw them overboard in order not to offend a certain group of proud ( I say in many cases: arrogant) people? Am I a bigot to say so? Am I not free to speak my piece?
You live in America. That’s a realy big country, so you don’t notice the growth of the muslim population and the demands it makes. I live in a relatively small city in the Netherlands. I’ve literaly seen the muslim population grow in my town. You see many more niqabs all around: at work, in shops en certainly on the street. It’s a sign of radicalisation to a certain degree. How is it possible that muslims who are born here wear the niqab, while their parents didn’t? Is it because their poor? That’s the standard argument for radicalisation, but the majority of orthodox muslims and certainly the suicidebombers are educated and relatively rich. The Leftist’s argument that the muslims will like our civilization and will adhere to our values doesn’t quite ring the bell. It seems like the more muslims are exposed to our liberal society, the more they turn against it.
Not long ago I saw a documentary on youtube about the Burqa ban in France and Belgium. Most Americans who were asked didn’t understand it and thought it was very discriminatory. Well, if you don’t know the situation, I can understand those reactions. Muslima’s here argue it’s their right to choose and ofcourse, religious freedom. I say it is definitely about culture: when you are taught not to trust westerners, you have difficulty to make friends. As teenager you like something to hold on, a group to belong to: the easiest is being a devout muslim. Furthermore, there’s pressure from the muslim community. As a chuild, you’re especially vulnerable, of course. The problem with niqabs is the pressure it gives on other women. We have area’s in the major cities where women can’t go out without niqab without being harrassed. That’the way it goes. Now it’s about the right for women to wear the niqab, step two will be that other women (not being muslim) have better wear the niqab, so they won’t be bothered. It ends with wearing a niqab will be obligatory.
So, am I a right wing bigot? Am I ignorant? Let me tell you, I used to vote left, without being much interested in politics. It just seem to me, that the Left was so kind to people. I’ve learned otherwise while I got more into Islam (read the Koran, Hadith and Islamic jurisprudence). Ignorant? I’ve majored in Art History (hear we call that doctorandus) at the university. Currently I’m studying Journalism. This is just to say I don’t vote PVV just for being ignorant. How about racist? Well, let me see: I’ve got a Hindu friend, one muslim friend and several black friends. Nope, I don’t think colour is an issue for me. For me it’s about ideas. About very bad ideas. So it is for Wilders. He does not attack people for the fact that their “foreign” or whatever. He doesn’t even attack muslims. It’s their ideas and their ideology he has a problem with and rightly so. He has suggested a ban on the Quran. Whow, Holland was in shock. But why? I believe most people in Hollandhaven’t even read the Quran. So, how would they know this is a bad, not to say, disriminatory idea? I’ve read the Quran and I know their are a lot of violent and hate incited passages in their. Why would a civilized culture stand for that? Why don’t see the “moderate” muslims these passages as for what they are? We have banned Mein Kampf, and although I’ve never read it, I can’t imagine it can be much worse than the Quran. I hate to make comparisons between World War II and the islamisation of today, but you canot escape to do so. The muslim youth of today who pester and intimidate women without niqab in the major cities can easily be compared with the early mobs of Hitler who intimidated voters and what not. Some Islamic school and certainly the Quran lessons in many mosques are in my opinion equal to the Hitler Jugend. I say it is happening all over again, unless we do something about it. THat’s why I think Geert Wilders can make a difference. No, I do not agree with every campaign issue of the PVV, but I think to stop the islamisation is the most important issue at this point.
Finally, I’d like to point out that one thing about the cartoon I think is especially offensive and basically historically just false: the comparison between the position of muslims in the Netherlands now and the position of the Jews in World War II. It’s utterly offensive, especially because the victims can’t defend themselves. Furthermore, the muslims have only themselves to blame not being able to integrate in our society. We don’t have problems with any other culture (although I must admit, that the Jews did not get intergrated that easily because of the nasty European antisemitism). This antisemitism is definitely on the rise again, by the way. I hear of Jews fleeing Amsterdam. And gays also. It’s an outrage. “Never again,”we said after WW II and yet, only 60 years later, it happens all over again.
So, to compare the muslims with the Jews is totally outrageous and deeply offense to all Jews. So Geert Wilders is not a racist, not a bigot, but a reasonable man who is prepared to take the hars measures neccessary.
Thank you.
Well Max, I (surprisingly?) agree with some of what you wrote. Though I think you have to look a little more carefully at what those in the anti-Muslim movement, like Ingrid and Geert Wilders are saying. If it was simply a matter of taking steps to ensure that liberal and democratic value exist and thrive in Muslims communities living in western countries, I’d be with you 100%. But that is not what Ingrid is proposing, not what Geert Wilders is proposing and certainly not what the anti-Muslim movement at large is proposing. Wilders proposes to ban the koran, effectively outlawing Islam. Ingrid has proposed (over and over and over and over), that all Muslims be expelled from Western countries. That is not restricted to immigrant Muslims, but that Americans who have lived in America for generations be stripped of their citizenship and deported to some random country that happens to be majority Muslims. If you look at some of the more extreme examples, like that site FreeBritain that filthy kafur posts at, they really are explicitly advocating genocide. They are organizing citizen armies to extra-judicially round up and violently expel any Muslim living in Britain.
Now, from where I sit, I see absolutely no threat to western civilization. Sure, I don’t doubt at all that that is what Islamists want. But there is no danger of that happening whatsoever. As I have mentioned, I have known many, many Muslims in Canada, where I live (and elsewhere). Not a single one had any beliefs that varied from standard western democratic principles. The reason for that, in my opinion, is that Canada is a diverse, tolerant country that promotes its values. Second generation immigrants always integrate and accept western values because in a free marketplace of ideas, western conceptions of freedom, tolerance and democracy will always win. I could count the number of radical Muslims in this country on my two hands. I would like to hear a coherent, reasonable explanation of how a bunch of idiot fuck-ups are going to overthrow the democratic order of a G8 country. To me, that sounds more than a little naive.
Now, you may think its naive for me to take the experience of every single Muslim I have ever met and generalize it. I think it is much more naive to ignore the experiences and mindset of the hundreds of millions of Muslims who don’t hold radical views. And I can assure you, I know plenty about Muslim history. I could sit here and type out a lecture on the beginnings of the ummah, the transitions from umayyad to abassid caliphates, the turco-persians empires and cultures of central asia… blah blah blah. I know the history. Thanks. And I don’t see anything in that history that would differentiate it from the horribly violent history of other religions and cultures. That is the nature of history. I could, if I wanted, look at the history of the inquisition in Spain, Spanish colonialism (ie. mass genocide of indigenous america populations) and all of Spanish history up to the very recent end of their facist government a few decades ago. One could easily look at that history and say that Spaniards were predisposed to violent and that we should be expelling them from (other) western countries. But nobody is doing that, because it would be insane. And its insane because in the west we (should) believe in looking at the thoughts and actions of individuals and not pursecute people because of their association with a race or religion. And we should be able to recognize the shared humanity and capacity to accept western democratic values in everyone.
Now, Ingrid and Wilders approach is to be as bigoted and hateful as possible in hopes of…. (!?) I really don’t know what they hope to do other than spread hatred and destroy any hopes of winning the war of ideas. If there is any sure way of making Muslims believe that they should rightfully be waging violent war against the west, just expose them to Ingrid for 5 minutes. Hell, I’m a third generation liberal athiest Canadian and I almost want to become a jihadist listening to Ingrid. I have enver come across a more vile, hateful, disgusting bigot in my entire life. If that is what the west has to offer the world, then I have no interest in saving the west. And that is my entire point. Ingrid is just as disgusting and hateful and Islamic jihadists. We should not be turing into what we oppose in order to fight it. It is both counter-productive and completely unnecessary.
Dear John,
Thanks for your reply. I don’t mean to attack you personally, of course, it’s just that I do not agree with you on certain points. You are aboslutely right when you talk about the disgusting thougt of deporting muslims who live in the West. And you are right about that you have to be careful not to judge people too quickly. Still, some points you make I find absolutely naive, I’m sorry to say.
First, you think Wilders is a radical nd dangerous for community harmony, because he proposes to ban the Quran. Well, first of all, everyone has the right to make a suggestion. Secondly, I think he has a valid point (in Holland Mein Kampf is banned, so why not the Quran, which is probably even more stuffed with hate inciting passages). I don’t agree with him to ban it, but only to scrap these hateful passages. Under the flag of religion everything is permitted, it seems. That I find disgusting.
Secondly, Wilders does not want to expell all muslims at all. Those who break the law repeatedly he wishes to send out of the country. Still, that is discriminatory, so there must be a overseeing institution to monitor all that. You must know, I realy hate this practice, but something has to be done. Furthermore, the birthrate among muslims is about twice as high as the among other communities. I tell you, there can never be a muslim majority in the West, because that will be the end of democracy.
You say that second generation immigarnts will always be more adapt to the new culture than their parents. How is it than that the second, third and fourth generation muslims in Europe are more radical than their predecessors? It’s a Western myth that everything will be allright when you give it time. That Western values will always win the hearts and minds of newcomers eventually. Now that’s naive!!! We are dealing with people from a vastly different culture and a very hostile one at that. Do you know Wafa Sultan? She’s a psychiatrist who escaped to the US because she was threatened in hr homeland Syrie where she spoke out against Islam. She says that many muslims she encountered in the US talk to Americans the sweet talk and to her they speak hateful about America. This was in the beginning of her stay in the US of course, now she is too well known. Also, almost all of the major Muslim human rights groups seems to be a front of the Muslimbrotherhood. You can check it out on Youtube. Search: Paul Sterry, Infiltration. Also Steve Emerson is an expert on this field. I mean to say, many Muslims talk the sweet talk but think differently. The difficulty is to know which muslim is sincere and which isn’t. Helpful questions are: do you condemn Hamas and Hezbollah? Do you think Jihad is justified when muslims are being killed? Do you approve of the punishment of apostates? Just simple, straight forward questions. I’d love to be able to trust every Muslim beforehand, but unfortunately, reality proofs this isn’t healthy to do. So the good suffer because of the bad. So, it is up to the enlightened muslims (I hate the term “moderate” muslim: it’s like saying the ideology he adheres to is very bad, but he doesn’t take it very seriously, so he’s a good guy. Like being a moderate Nazi?) to bring about change in their community. But…the bad guys have all the money (Saudi funded, that is: funded by an American ally!!!). THe enlightened muslims don’t have the means to speak out and if they do, they fear for their lives. This is happening in our free world!!!
Finally, you compare Islam with all other religions, especially Christianity. Now that’s a very common argument, which is very misleading. Christianity in itself is not hostile (although every religion shuts people out because of certain beliefs) and doesn’t teach violence perse. Well, the concept of Hell is of course abominable and right out criminal to teach children, but it does not teach to wage warfare against everything nonchristian. Well, Islam does. Furthermore, Mohammed is the perfect role model for all muslims and well, I don’t think that there are many historical figures who were more cruel, more hateful, more hatemonguering than this character. That there are actually people who thake such a character as their role model is totally beyond me. At least Jezus Christ and Buddha and other religious figures tought peace. Well, being a rational thinker I realy don’t care for all that jazz, but when I have to choose…well, Christianity of course.
You say it can never happen to the West. Well, it’s happening! You say the islamists can never succeed. How do you know? And why is that comforting to say? Just the fact that there are people who want to overthrow our way of life, isn’t that worrying enough? You say it is a handfull of morons. How come about 40 percent of Britain´s muslim youth wants to see Britain to have Shariah law. How come a large part of the namely Moroccan youth here in the Netherlands cause so much trouble. How come you see this pattern everywhere in Europe, well, everywhere where Islam is introduced. The transition takes place very casually, step by step. You don´t notice it when you don´t focus on it. The Nazi party came to power because everyone thought they could contain such a small group. But the party was able to attract the attention of the people and within the groups process awfull ideas and ideologies rose. Ofcourse, the immense inflation at the time and the Treaty of Versailles were major contributing factors, but still, no one saw this coming or were in denial and appeasement, just like the West is doing now!!! Last example, Lebonan was a Christian country, very flourishing in the sixties. The Arabs moved in from neighboring countries, took multiple wives and had a much higher birth rate than the Christians. Eventually, they drove the Christians out of the country. And…the Roman Empire fell because of the mass immigration of the people of the north. Of course, the empire was weakened by internal battles and bad leadership, but the real downfall came, when the people of the north came with massive numbers within the borders. The point being, that a large group of foreign people almost always clash with the other people living there. And when you take the culture of Islam it´s especially a problem, because Islam has always been at war with everything nonmuslim. The fact that in the Middle East there are corrupt regimes, is because they know what the islamists will do when ever there will be free elections. Or the fact that Islamist are able to take power, says much about the sentiments that are dominating in the Middle East.
You talk about Ingrid. I don´t know her. Only the few posts on this site I´ve read, but no more. So, I don+t think we should be hysterical about the islamisation of the West, but I do think we must do something about it. Don+t be fooled by so called moderate muslims who speak out, because the ones that do are often not to be trusted. Well, I mean you must do some research before you believe the spokesmen for major muslim organisations. This is not paranoia, because this lying is well documented. It´s sad but true. I would like to advise you to do some research about ISNA, CAIR and other major muslim organisations in the US. I hope it will only be a handful islamists who are wicked, but I don´t bet my life upon it.
Being careful is always a sensible thing to do.
Thanks for the reply Praapje. Yes, feel free to disagree. I don’t at all take it personally. Though I disagree with your characterization of me as naive.
First, I’m glad you agree that it is disgusting and bigoted to propose deporting western Muslim citizens. I would think that lots of Wilders’ supports also think it is disgusting. I just wish mroe of them would say so rather than remaining silent while their allies like Ingrid so on preaching bigotry.
Second – “I don’t agree with him to ban it, but only to scrap these hateful passages. Under the flag of religion everything is permitted, it seems. That I find disgusting.” This runs counter to freedom of religion. I know you disagree with my comparison of Christianity and Islam, but there are disgusting, genocidal verses in he old testament that, if we are going to appoitn a secular authority to determine what parts of religious holy books are to be expunged, should also be removed. But it is ridiculous to think that it would be at all practical or effective or in keeping with western values of freedom of religion and speech to have a secular authority determining while components of holy books should be banned and which not. Freedom of speech means the freedom to say disgusting things (ie. Ingrid). Freedom of religion means the freedom to have religious texts with disgusting passages, so long as those passage do not lead to otherwise unlawful acts. And seeing as we already have specific laws to curb violent action, I see that as sufficient.
Third – it is only your opinion that Islam and Christianity are different because Islam mandates the preaching of violence. You are simply wrong. The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims Imams in western countries do not preach violence, and do not confirm to your characterization. You are obviously, objectively and imperically wrong. Full stop.
Quickly – fourth, front groups. There are a lot of bigots who are generally hateful of Muslims taht make money and careers off demonizing Muslims and promoting the idea of stealth infiltration. Stop listening to these people. They are charlatans making a living off falsing promoting hatred and division.
And fifth, I have a lot to say om this point, as its my main one, but I don’t have time. The different rates of Muslim integration in European and American countries, I belive, is entirely due to the willness of the indigenous populations to accept integration. In Canada, we are culturally diverse and so second generation immigrants easily integrate. In other more ethnically homogenous countries, like France and Holland, bias and discrimination make it more difficult to integrate and thus second and third generations turn to Islam for the sense of community and acceptance they don’t receive elsewhere. I have seen large numbers of immigrants integrate and thrive with my own eyes. There is nothing you could tell me to make me discount those experiences. It is possible in the right environment and I belive that is the environment we should be fostering, rather than the kind of bigoted hysteria that people like Widlers and Ingrid peddle. Again, we are free to disagree. But that is where I’m coming from.
Praapje – Your first comment had been held in moderation so I only just saw it. My previous response was to John, and then to your second post. So just to touch on a few points:
– “Well, well, John , you’re a very liberal multiculturalist, hey? All cultures are equel? Their values ass well? You think it’s okay to denigrate women, kill gays and Jews, long for a theocracy and well, kill all apostates? Well, if that’s the case I think you have indeed very queer values and low standards.” You have a warped and incorrect impression of what people who supprot multi-culturalism are actually supporting. People who support mutli-culturalism support aspects of other cultures that do not impede on the fundament rights of others. Denigrating women – not part of multi-culturalism.Killing other people – not part of multi-culturalism. This should be obvious to anyone with a brain.
– “All Wilders does is criticizing the writings and ideology of Islam, not the people.” – This is wrong. You can criticize the aspects of a religion you find distasteful without criticizing the people who follow it. Wilders misses this mark by a long shot. He states often and explicitly that it is impossible to be a “moderate muslim” (you have adapoted this rhetoric). This tars all Muslims with the brush of extremism. He spreads hatred by spreading the idea that adherents to Islam are inherently violent and their values are inherently incompatible with western values. This is speaking of the individuals involved, not the religion. It is demonstrably false – there are many practicing Muslims who are western democrats. Again, this should be obvious an anyone with a brain.
– “He only talks about people who break the law: they should be handeled fiercely, more than the soft approach we have now. ” Of course, he also wants to ban the koran, which in practice would make all Muslims people who break teh law by virtue of being Muslims. So what he is saying, if you look at everything he says, is that all Muslims should be handled fiercely, because all Muslims will be committing illegal acts by virtue of their religious affiliation. And then he says he wants to open scum camps to send these people adn their families. I’m sorry, but if you add all that up iot is nothing less than an open call to send Muslims to concentration camps. Which, btw, is many, many, many peoples reasonable interpretation of his policies – thus the cartoon in question here.
– One quick correction, as I noted, I’m Canadian, not American. I should also note that my grandfather risked his life and took part in the allied liberation of holland from the nazis. He was invited back for the 50th anniversary of the liberation and could not get over the warm and charm and gratitude of the dutch people who welcomed him there. he found it all deeply moving. part of what my grandfather fought for was the values that make the west great. among those values are freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association. Those are the things that would be lost if Wilders had his way and banned the koran (thus effectively banning Islam). Nobody, Praapje, certainly not me, wants the harrassment of women in the streets and the institution of sharia law. But there are better ways to deal with those issues that the kind of hatred and bigotry that Wilders subscribes to. His approach is going to make any problems holland has much, much worse. If you elect a man to power who openly preaches the kind of hatred Wilders does, you will lose every single Muslim in the country that would have otherwise been your ally in building a tolerant adn peaceful country on western values. you will have also lost people like me, who simple will not go along with his bigotry and collective punishment of a minority.
John,
I could not have said it better and I support your comments 100 per cent.
Thanks for your post, John.
I just want to touch om some points you make. I regret to say, I do not agree on a most points you make. If we did agree, than the conversation would be boring, wouldn’t it?
First, you don’t like to scrap hateful passages in the Quran, because you honor the freedom of religion. Furthermore, you say that the Bible also has hateful passages. To begin with freedom of religion: I do believe this is important, because it constitutes an element of freedom of speech. But…that doesn’t mean that everything should be permitted under the guise of religion. We have banned human and animal sacrifices, we have banned polygamy (well, at least in the Us with the Mormons). How is it than that we don’t ban halal prepared meat, where the animal suffers unnecessarily? Or we don’t ban circumcision of little boys as well as girls? I could go on and on.
I don’t encourage a ban on the Quran, because I also believe in freedom of speech and expression. I don’t believe Wilders wil do so either, it was just a way to attract attention to this book. You say one cannot ban a religious book, because it would make the adherents (in this case muslims) criminals. I do agree banning it is not the solution, but the discussion about those hateful passages is. These passages must be addressed, certainly by so called moderate muslims (a term I will discuss later on). In Holland “Mein Kampf” has been banned, so I ask you: what’s the difference? Just because it is easier to ban a book that’s not adhered to by millions? Isn’t that being hypocritical and unfair? I do believe Mein Kampf should be available, along with a public discussion and comdemnation of it. Why don’t we have this discussion about the Quran?
Furthermore, you state that the Old Testament also has awful violent passages in it. I agree, pretty repulsive. There are though some major differences bewteen the BiIble and the Quran: the first is descriptive, the second prescriptive. The Quran speaks directly to the reader, that is the muslim reader and condemns everything nonmuslim. The bible also talks of people outside the faith, but it is up to God to punish them (yeah, he’s a real loving father). I find it striking that you, a self proclaimed atheist, find it so easy to criticize Christianity, but have so much difficulty to do the same with the Islam. Have you read the Quran, the Hadith and the Islamic Jurisprudence? Just curious.
You say the vast, vast, vast majority of imams in Canada do not preach violence. Well, I’d like to believe that, but where’s the proof? Have you got evidence to back it up? I realy hope that’s the case, but I haven’t seen any professional inquiry about it. Instead, I hear more and more stories about Imams who DO preach violence. And not just imams. Last year a Belgian female journalist went undercover in the muslim comunity in Antwerp. She discovered that many mulima’s she encountered en befriended talked the sweet talk to the outside, but inside their community say they endorsed suicidebombings against nonbelievers and other not so nice statements. Also, Paul Sterry wrote the book Muslim Maffia where he exposes the aims of CAIR. So, I’m not saying every muslim is not to be trusted, far from it, but such info isnt very helpful, is it?
You say that those who “slander” the muslim organisations are just fearmongering bigots. Well, how do you know? Have you listended to what they say? If so, have you checked their stories and statements? In the case of the book MUslim Maffia, you won’t have to do any investigation, because the book is very well documented. Isn’t it a bit hasty to judge those people who criticise these organisations? I’m not saying I believe all they say, certainly not, but it is totally absurd how the mainstream media doesn’t cover any criticism of Islam, while Christianity is bashed almost everyday. Don’t you think that’s peculiar? So, I’m not a fearmonguering bigot, if I may say so, just critical. Do you think it’s okay to criticise things I don’t like?
Secondly ( I believe it is), you say the muslim population in Canda is vastly different than the one in Europe, because of Canada’s experience with immigration, heck, it is founded upon immigration waves. How do you know it is different? Are you familiar with the muslimpopulation over here? Many Americans and Canadians say that their muslimcommunity is different and wel integrated and that they will have not the problems we have over here in Europe. Furthermore, you say that due to European hostility towards immigrants (well, you’re partly right) well, the Europeans are to blame for this. That’s odd. In your second post you say that your father went to the 50th anniversary of the liberation (of Holland?) and met only kind people. How is it than that we, Europeans, are so hostile towards muslims? Do we have any problems with Chinese? With Hindu’s? With people from Suriname or Indonesia? No, we don’t. Don’t you think it is possible that the culture of muslims clashes with ours? You say it is discriminatory to focus on the muslim community. Well, let me ask you: isn’t it discriminatory to do nothing, while many truly moderate muslims are suffering (especially women) from the community and social pressure? When we deal with the structural problems within the muslim community in our democracy, we also help these moderate muslims!
Do I believe there are moderate muslims. Of course! I was just saying that ii is odd to speak about “moderate” when you adhere to a inherently violent scripture. There are indeed many if not most moderate Christians (although I’m not sure if that’s the case in America), but they went through the Enlightenment and lived through all these changes in the West. Is it discriminatory to say that most muslims do not know democracy, certainly not at first hand? I realy can understand they having difficulty to live in such a different society, but how about the muslims who are born here? How come they radicalise? All I’m saying is we have to monitor not only the suspected radicals, but also the so called moderate institutions. Like I say, we must be critical and thoroughly accurate about these organisations.
Do I believe there’s a conspiracy of muslim traitors in our midst? No, I don;t. I do believe theere are some muslim wacko’s who like to install shariah by any means necessary. So we must monitor them and give pressure on the muslim community to deal with them themselves. And deal with them good!
You speak about the scum villages the PVV wants to create. I find it odd, that you assume these village swill be meant for muslims specifically. Now, that’s total nonsense. The villages are meant for anyone who commits crime repeatedly or harrasses a neighboorhood repeatedly. In Holland we have lots of Dutch people who are criminally active or are realy anti-social. Still, crime statistics show that percentage wise muslim youth stands out drastically. So, it is inevitable that indeed some muslims will meet the criteria necessary for these villages. Now, do I agree with this? Absolutely not. I think we already have these villages and they are called: prisons! But sometimes it is difficult to criminally charge someone who only pesters or cunningly knows his way around the law. Maybe you don’t know, but this proposition was also made about ten years ago by the leftist socialist party in our country, the SP, who called for indeed pestering criminals and drugaddicts to remove to the edges of the city. Now, why is there so much fuss about this proposal and did the one by the SP get unnoticed? Is it because the left wants to smear the PVV repeatedly?
So, finally, I’d like to say that I’m not voting PVV. I’m a liberal and all, but I don’t agree with the measures Wilders wants to install. I vote the VVD, a liberal party, which currently runs our government. I’m just backing Geert Wilders because he has the right to criticize Islam and he is smeared, pestered and dragged to court by doing so. That’s a real shame!!! It indeed is a attack on free speech! Furthermore, I think it is hypocritical to treat Geert Wilders and the PVV this way, when within Islam there are many hatemonguering Imams, there are pretty resentful ideas (antisemitism, treating of women, the ludicrous demands for praying places at work and in public schools, the abuse of children during Quran lessons in mosques, the defamation of criticizing Islam etc). Why don’t we do something about these horrible practises, instead of shooting the messenger.
So. no I do not agree with Geert Wilders on some points, but I will defend his right to say them.
Your father has fought for a free Europe. A continent with democracy, free speach, freedom of religion etc. We can honour him by defending these principles and rights by criticizing these very elements within Islam that are diabolically oppossed to these principles!
Praapje,
Some quick responses:
– “To begin with freedom of religion: I do believe this is important, because it constitutes an element of freedom of speech. But…that doesn’t mean that everything should be permitted under the guise of religion” I think what you are getting at here is: where the line? And the answer for me is simple. Religions should be free to the extent they don’t impact other peoples rights. Having a passage of text in a koran does not infringe other peoples rights. Period. It requires a person taking positive acts after coming to a specific interpretation of that text before it crosses the line. Yes, I have read the koran. Yes, there are disgusting things in it. But I really don’t see them as more disgusting that things in the bible.
– “How is it than that we don’t ban halal prepared meat, where the animal suffers unnecessarily?” I am a strict vegetarian. In my opinion, there is very very little commercially available meat that did nto require horrific violence against the animal. My personal believe is that everyone should be a vegetarian (though I would not act on this in the political sphere). So if you are asking me if halal meat crosses the line with respect to animal cruelty, yes. But all meat does.
– “Or we don’t ban circumcision of little boys as well as girls?” We should, in my opinion. This is a perfect example of a scriptural text being used to committ violence against an individual without his or consent. However, I would not demand that those passages be removed from the bible. See the difference?
– “You say that those who “slander” the muslim organisations are just fearmongering bigots. Well, how do you know? Have you listended to what they say? If so, have you checked their stories and statements? In the case of the book MUslim Maffia, you won’t have to do any investigation, because the book is very well documented. Isn’t it a bit hasty to judge those people who criticise these organisations?” Yes, I have listened to what many of them have to say, I have checked their stories and statements, and found them to be, in the vast majority of the time, bigoted nonsense. I’m not familiar with this book in particular, but I certainly know the daniel pipes, frank gaffney type who would (and do) say that every Muslim is an extremist. These people are not every close to credible to me. They are some of the most paranoid, bigoted people in American intellectual circles today (I use “intellectual” very loosely in these peoples case). I have not read anything by Paul Sperry, so I obviously reserve judgment. But I would certainly read it with a skeptical mind and would certainly read any counter-arguments availalbe.
– “So, I’m not a fearmonguering bigot, if I may say so, just critical. Do you think it’s okay to criticise things I don’t like?” Of course. Just as I’m criticizing things I don’t like. It just so happens, from where I sit, that the Muslim-hate movement is far more troubling, common and prevelent than the threat of sharia law overthrowing western democratic orders. By a long shot. As you can see on this site, people like Ingrid are openly preaching ethnic cleasing. And Ingrid has a powerful politician representing her views. That, to me, is very very dangerous.
– “How is it than that we, Europeans, are so hostile towards muslims? Do we have any problems with Chinese? With Hindu’s? With people from Suriname or Indonesia? No, we don’t.” (it was my grandfather btw). Well, he was a white protestant returning to be celebrated for taking part in the liberation of holland. He was not a dark skinned immigrant. That would certainly explain the discrepency. Do Europeans have problems with Chinese or Hindus? Well, yeah, they do. I have not seen any indication of better rates of integration among other minority groups. And since Indonesians are Muslims, I would say taht at least Geert Wilders has a very big problem with them.
– “When we deal with the structural problems within the muslim community in our democracy, we also help these moderate muslims” This is indeed what I would like to see. I don’t see Geert Wilders addressing structural problems at all. I see him promoting mindless hatred.
– “You speak about the scum villages the PVV wants to create. I find it odd, that you assume these village swill be meant for muslims specifically. Now, that’s total nonsense” Why would you find it odd that when a man devotes his entire life to demonizing a minority and suggests criminalizing their very existence that people would assume that when he talks about sending away “scum”, that is who he is talking about.
– “But sometimes it is difficult to criminally charge someone who only pesters or cunningly knows his way around the law. Maybe you don’t know, but this proposition was also made about ten years ago by the leftist socialist party in our country, the SP, who called for indeed pestering criminals and drugaddicts to remove to the edges of the city. Now, why is there so much fuss about this proposal and did the one by the SP get unnoticed? Is it because the left wants to smear the PVV repeatedly” – I don’t understand this paragraph at all. Either someone breaks the law, or they do not. If they have, they should be given the full benefit of procedural protection until they are found guilty in accordance with the law. Then they should be sentenced. If I am understanding your interpretation of this proposal, it is for people who have not actually committed a crime, but for people who “pester”. Either this is a crime, or it is not. There is no in between where some government official makes a decision outside the procedural protections of the law to have someone declared “scum” and sent to some quasi-prison. If there were a more specific proposal – such as the possibility of an alternative sentencing scheme for repeat drug offenders whereby they are sent for detox treatment at a specific facility for such people, fine. Great idea. That is not what the proposal was. It was left extremely ambiguous. And again. when a man who has dedicated his life to stirring up hatred against a minority group proposes to send “scum” (and their entire families) to “scum villages”, well, I feel free to interpret accordingly. And I have not seen anything that would change my interpretation.
– “Your father has fought for a free Europe. A continent with democracy, free speach, freedom of religion etc. We can honour him by defending these principles and rights by criticizing these very elements within Islam that are diabolically oppossed to these principles” I do and will. But I will also criticize people like Geert Wilders who are also trying to destroy freedom of religion and freedom of speech. And since Geert Wilders is popular politician with a real chance of gaining power, he is the priority.
Praapje – One more quick note on Wilders’ scum village proposal. This is what someone recently posted in a different thread on this site:
“Clearly, Geert Wilders is a man who is wise enough to create an appropriate community setting for those people whose values breed contempt and violence. many are vagabonds and persistent nuisances! Any large group of Islamic people are about 10% infected with hostility and aggression and so the whole group should be quarantined. ”
I believe Wilders kept his proposal vague because: (i) he wants his supports to believe that these are Muslim concentration camps – and this is indeed how his supports are interpreting the proposal: “the whole group should be quarantined”. The whole group. meaning all Muslims. (ii) he wants to maintain plausible denyability that this was indeed his intention. And maybe it isnt. Maybe he is just blowing a dog whistle so that his extremist followers will think/hope that he is going to round up Muslims and put them in camps while having no intention of doing so. Either way, he is a revolting and dangerous individual.
Lies, lies lies, nothing but lies, Praapje, ever come out of the above’s vile mouth.
‘… he is a revolting and dangerous individual’ (he is projecting, as usual, isn’t it strange, a person like HIM SHOULD HAVE THE GALL TO CALL GEERT WILDERS THAT??) It is strangely characteristic of evil people to call good people evil.
The evil Rabbis of Yahushua’s days living on earth 2000 years ago said that HE, THE SON OF YAHU, WAS DEMONIC!
How very telling. We all know who is worshipping whom by what their hearts project – lies and hatred, or truth and humanity.
Even the devil uses feigned love in his warfare against us. Lies, only lies – with a little bit of truth mixed in , just enough to allow us to attempt to swallow them.
he is a master at the deception which is programmed and demonstrated by Mohammed, the servant of Evil.
Ingrid, when the pleasant folks in white coats come looking for you again, just go with them. They have some delicious medicine that will make the voices in your head go away.
Hi John,
I have to say, you made some exellent points. I do agree with you, for instance, that people can be prosecuted when they infringe on other people’s rights. It’s true I’m totalyy against hate speeech laws, that’s very dangerous indeed. But…I draw the line when it comes to call explicitly for violence. The Bible does not state: kill the unbeliever or whatever. Sure, it condemns a lot, but leaves much of the punishment to God. The Quran is different: it actually calls on several occasions to kill unbelievers, Christians and Jews (well, after trying to convert them to Islam, that is). That’s just a fact. When the Quran states: Jews are like pigs and what not, heck, I strongly disagree, but I do think that’s an opinion which one must be able to express. When it comes to call for the murder of Jews, gays and other violent acts, that should be banned and removed from the Quran. In my recollection the BIble does not contain such call for violence (except within the third person narrative’. But if there is a direct call to violence, that should be removed too, obviously.
The fact that you´re a vegetarian is good for you. But meat does contain vital vitamins and substances. Maybe we can do without, but that would take along time for the human race to adjust. Furthermore, we don´t know the consequences. Anyway, despite the fact I like my steak every wednesday, I do worry about the welfare of the animals. I believe it is vitally important to secure the welfare of animals (enough space to live, decent treatment and certainly a quick and if possible painless death).
About circumcision…you say you condemn it but would not remove it from the scriptures. Well, when our laws forbid such practices I couldn´t care less about what the scriptures say. When it comes to call for violence it´s a different matter…we already have laws that forbid such talk, still we do nothing about those passages. That I find criminally annoying!
Your stand on those `Islamophobic bigots` is pretty rigid, isnt it (shit, my questionmark keynote doesn´t work). You say you´ve investigated their stories and find them altogether false. I´m not saying I believe everything they say, but it has made me skeptical to say the least. I too verify most info I find interesting and check other stories about it. I´ve seen a lot of videos and comment from CAIR on various subject. I cannot detach myself from the thought that they are playing the victim much too often. When I hear a muslim blaming other factors for the position Islam is in today than blaming Islam itself (at least partially), I just don´t believe them. When people say it´s only a minority that´s causing trouble, well, that doesn´t change much, does it (questionmark). Or…they are hijacking the religion. Well, doesn´t help much either, does it (qm). The fact is, all that jihadshit and suicidebombings and what not , are in perfect harmony with the Islamic teachings. I´m not saying I blame every muslim, of course not. I do blame every serious muslim who doesn´t stand up against it, because it is done under the flag of their religion and kills absurdly many innocent victims including fellow muslims. I just don´t get it, do you (qm).
You talk about racism in Europe. I hate to admit that Europe hasn´t been the best exemple when it comes to tolerance. Even when Holland was so on the rise in the seventeenth century and when it had the name of being tolerant (this period is still known for that), it was this way because it was good for business. The term tolerant is still pretty offensive, realy. When I say I tolerate you, you wouldn´t be flattered. To accept someone is a much nicer thing to do. This whole tolerance thing is quite misleading, because it has the connotation it is the `right` thing to do. Weird.
You say we have trouble with Chines and Hindu´s. How do you know (qm). Have you actually been here and experienced it yourself (qm). I for one have never heard of a crime against a Chinese or Hindu because of their religion or origin. Never…except…by muslims. That´s true. I don´t know because it was of their origin or what, so I don´t count this as being inherently to blame to Islam. You say Indonesians are muslim. Well, now they are, but the many Indonesians and people from the Molukken who live here in Holland since right after WOII are not. Either they are CHristians or are CHristian with a twist (people from Molukken). Furthermore, Indonesians from before the independence in 1949 from the Netherlands are pretty familiar with the Duth culture. We have had some trouble with `Molukkers` in 1977, when a group held a train hostage for some two days…they wanted The Molukken to be independant, away from Indonesia. But that wasn´t violence against unbelievers or against the state. These people are very well integrated. Maybe you haven´t hard…with New Year´s celebration a Molukken community got in trouble with the Marokkan community in Nijmegen. There were riots with much damage and several injured. The Marokkan community has grown so fast there and, well, according to the Molukken they are being very hostile towards them. The Maroccans say the same thing about the Molukken. The fact is, there are increasing tensions between Mulsims and other groups and not just caucasions or Christians.
About the so/called scum villages. You say Wilders intend to use it for muslims specifically, because he has hated them all his life, basically. The fact that the crime statistics are headed by muslims give the latter indeed the needed criteria to have to move their. Let´s be clear, I do not approve of this idea, I think it will solve nothing. But the statistics…according to the latest polls by the Ministry of Justice about 25 percent of the jail population is muslim. Than you have people from The Antilles, about 9 percent, Dutch people about 55 percent and other groups like Hindus, Shinti, East/Europeans. Well, since we have a population of about 17 million people of which about a million are muslim. Let´s say another two million are from other origin than Dutch, that will leave 14 million for the people of Dutch origin. That would mean that the crime level of Dutch people should be 14 times as high as that of the muslims. As we have seen, it´s only 2 times as high. In other words..the crime rate of muslims is about 700 percent higher than that of the people of Dutch origin. I don´t know the exact numbers for the other groups in the list, but they certainly aren´t as high as that of the muslims.
So…yeah, muslims would be the main category out of which people would be send towards these villages. Again, I find it a horrible idea and would certainly vote against it. But please…don´t equate it with concentrationcamps, that´s an insult to all the people who have actually been in one.
You make it sound so easy to deal with these pestering thugs and literally children on the streets of the major cities here. We talk about the chasing of Jews and gays out of muslim dominated neighboorhoods. This is often done in a way it is hard to prove who done it. The fact is that not the actions itself is the problem, but the constant fear of being threatened, bullied and harrassed. It´s the atmosphere it creates and that´s hard to deal with within the law. So, I think it´s time to study this phenomenon and creates some effective laws that deal with this.
And Geert Wilders destroying freedom of religion and of free speech (qm). Wilders does speak of the dangers of the Islamic ideology and I agree with him. Still, it also is a religion and I do think should have every right to be adhered to. But when you think of it…in the West the law guarantees freedom of religion for the INDIVIDUAL and Islam just doesn´t fall into that criterium. Apostates are being killed or at least harrassed (so too in Holland). Any muslim who says that isn´t so, well, doesn´t know his business or is lying. It´s as simple as that. It´s in the teachings of all the important scholars in Islam that this is the case. Instead of wining about this, muslims should protest these practises and stand up for a civilised Islam. That´s all I´m asking.
If Homo sapiens are to survive, it requires accommodation from different religions, sects, and races. No one can deny the existence of racial prejudice, but the world has been addressing this phenomenon for a hundred years or more. We have not solved the problem yet but given the goodwill that exists on all sides it should disappear eventually, at least let us hope. The same cannot be said of Islam. It is a stand alone religion, seeking ways to dominate the world. There is very little effort on its part to seek accommodation with other faiths. What it needs, a watering down of the offending passages in the quran to bring it line with other religions. But who is going to do it? I am tired of hearing about the so called moderate Muslim. Can some one define for me what is meant by a moderate Muslim? If the world is full of them, I have to wonder why they are not taking the initiative and doing the job… If there are hordes of them in the East and West, why are they not taking the initiative? All the while the non-Muslim world is arguing about whether Geert Wilders is right or wrong. Are we not going around a circle completely ignoring the main issue?
Praapje,
“The Quran is different: it actually calls on several occasions to kill unbelievers, Christians and Jews (well, after trying to convert them to Islam, that is). That’s just a fact. ” You are wrong. Full stop. The vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims do not read anything in the Koran as being a presciptive instruction to kill unbelievers. The only people who read the Koran this way are violent extremist. Again, it is an issue of interpretation. You are reading the koran (or more likely, reading the interpretations of the koran of anti-Muslims extremists) and intrepeting it the same way as violent extremists are. Which is different from teh way almost every Muslims reads it. And that is why 99.9% of religious Muslims do not go around killing unbelievers. It seems to obvious to have to point this out that I simply don’t believe you are coming to this argument in good faith. There are tons of verses in the bible that could be interpret as a precriptive instruction to kill non-believers. And this was indeed the way they were interpreted in Christian societies for hundreds of years. Quite simply, you are saying you do not believe in freedom of religion. That’s fine. But you should be explicit that this is your belief.
“But meat does contain vital vitamins and substances. Maybe we can do without, but that would take along time for the human race to adjust. Furthermore, we don´t know the consequences. ” Again, you simply don’t know what you are talking about. There have been vegetarian societies in different places around the world for thousands of years. It is entirely possible to be a vegetarian and live a long healthy life while getting all essential food requirements.
“About circumcision…you say you condemn it but would not remove it from the scriptures. Well, when our laws forbid such practices I couldn´t care less about what the scriptures say. When it comes to call for violence it´s a different matter…we already have laws that forbid such talk, still we do nothing about those passages. That I find criminally annoying” I find this paragraph internally inconsistent. You say you don’t care about what scripture says if there are already laws prohibiting that behaviour, but immediately apply a different standard to other verses of scripture that, as I just pointed out, are only actual calls to active violence if you share the interpretation of a small minority of extremists.
“When I hear a muslim blaming other factors for the position Islam is in today than blaming Islam itself (at least partially), I just don´t believe them.” – That is your decision. I can look at minority group and say that I am going to treat them any other human being until they give reason to think otherwise of them. Or, I can look at the worse of a particular group and decide that I am going to assume other’s of that group are in line with the worst until they prove otherwise. I choose to live my life the first way. You have chosen the second way. That’s fine. That’s a difference of opinion.
“When people say it´s only a minority that´s causing trouble, well, that doesn´t change much, does it?” – Well, it should change everything if it is true. Which it is. Again, you are choosing to start from a position of believing the worst about individuals because of their association with a religion. I choose not to do that. Again, difference of opinion.
Re: paragraph on crime statistics. Here in Canada, we have a massively disproportionate number of First Nations people in prisons. Crime statistics are, more than anything, a function of rates of poverty of particular ethnic groups. In America, there is a massively disproportionate number of African-Americans in prisons. In my view, this is a product, in both cases, of a history of hundreds of years of racism and discrimination. And slavery and segregation in the case of the US. Here in Canada, our government attempted to eliminate the culture and language of First Nations by abduscting them from their rural, traditional lives to be raised in religions schools where they were prohibited from speaking their native language and subjected to horrible physical and sexual abuse. This can created a vicous cycle of substance abuse problems in First Nations communities, and thus, combined with just plain old racial profiling by Canadian police, the increased rates of crime. Now, I could look at the crime rates of First Nations and make a comment about the inherent nature of First Nations peoplle, like you do about Muslims. But I don’t, because I realize it is more complicated than that. So why is there a high crime rate among Muslims in the Netherlands? Is it because Muslims are more prone to crime? There is not a higher crime rate amonst Muslims here in Canada. Is it because there is widespread hatred and bigotry directed against Muslims in the Netherlands, including an entire politcal party dedicated to demonizing them, and lack of fair and equal access to employment and the economy promote crime? Maybe.
“So…yeah, muslims would be the main category out of which people would be send towards these villages. Again, I find it a horrible idea and would certainly vote against it. But please…don´t equate it with concentrationcamps, that´s an insult to all the people who have actually been in one.” Please note that Wilders also suggested sending the families of “scum” to these village. So part of his proposal is indeed sending people who have committed no crime to prison. Is that really so different from being sent to a concentration camp? Also, you are working on an assumption of Widlers’ good faith. I see no reason why I should assume the good faith a man who has devoted his existence to promoting hatred against a minority.
“The fact is that not the actions itself is the problem, but the constant fear of being threatened, bullied and harrassed. It´s the atmosphere it creates and that´s hard to deal with within the law. So, I think it´s time to study this phenomenon and creates some effective laws that deal with this.” Yes, this is a problem. Is the solution to stir up further hatred of Muslims or round up innocent people and send them to “scum villages”? I think not. There are lots of urban areas all around the world that dangerous to go into for certain groups of people. If you think a gay man could walk around the streets of south central los angeles without harrassment or violence, you’re crazy. The response to this shouldn’t be to stir up racial hatred against the minority groups that live there. Or to deport members of those ethnic groups. In my view, the solution is some combination of: (i) community based policing; (ii) improvements in education and social services; (iii) a plan for long-term integration fo new immigrants; and (iv) increased access to employment opportunties. Note how none of those four points involved stirring up hatred of minorities. Again, just a difference of opinion between me and Wilders and his supporters.
“But when you think of it…in the West the law guarantees freedom of religion for the INDIVIDUAL and Islam just doesn´t fall into that criterium.” This doesn’t make any sense. What do you mean? You can’t say that an individual enjoys freedom of religion when you ban the book that individual considers to be holy scripture. How is this any different than saying: I believe in freedom of religion. But that freedom is only for individuals. So it is in keeping with freedom of religion if I ban teh Christian bible and organized churches. That way, the INDIVIDUAL is still free to practice their religion.
“Apostates are being killed or at least harrassed (so too in Holland). Any muslim who says that isn´t so, well, doesn´t know his business or is lying. It´s as simple as that. It´s in the teachings of all the important scholars in Islam that this is the case.” – Again, you are just plain wrong. You seem to know absolutely nothing about Islamic theology or history other than what you read from anti-Muslim extremists. If you really believe this to be the case, please provide the names of important Islamist scholars who have interpreted the koran as providing an active requirement for Muslims to seek out of kill non-Muslims. If you come back adn quote Sayyid Qutb, then you should know you have failed your task as he is only considered an influential scholar amongst a small minority of extremist. I am talking about mainstream Muslims scholars who say that Islamic scriptures provides a prescriptive religious duty to kill non-Muslims. If you can’t come back with a long list showing that this is mainstream Muslim thought, you should be ashamed of yourself for believing what a bunch of dedicated anti-Muslim bigots are telling you to belive about Islam without thoroughly researching their claims.
“Instead of wining about this, muslims should protest these practises and stand up for a civilised Islam. That´s all I´m asking.” All I’m asking is that issues of Islamic extremism be addressed without resorting to widespread bigotry and demonization of minorities. That’s all I’m asking.
OK, right, there are some good ideas up there and a lot of bullcrap. Enough camel crap to fertilize the entire Sahara, which would help those people. Two of my coments failed to post for some reason. So many people are so full of crap that I think my country is doomed, perhaps more so than Europe, which is in various countries and towns full of violence against the natives. To the person who likes to insult people who are Kuffar and defending their countrymen in the truth, are you so cluelessly willingly stupid that you dare to speak up and show your abysmal stupidity, I can’t imagine how you actually can live with yourself. If you don’t realize that you as Kuffar are in the crosshairs of a few hundred thousand obedient slaves to the vile one simply because you aren’t muslim too, and dare to insult us who are at least attempting to alert our fellow countrymen, there is absolutely no hope for us or freedom if you even represent half of our populace. You don’t even know the first concepts of Islam. You don’t even know what Kuffar are, that your throat will be no different than any of ours who speak out against their crimes. What an asshole.
Second, the very prescient characterisation by Kurt Westergard of Bombhead Mohammed is brilliant in his accurate depiction of that vile man’s demon-infested mind. It is funny because of it. Because it is truthfully depicted. How come Muslims are offended by that truth and yet, are not angered by his horrible life’s deeds and demands of them all? Why does truth never receive honest acceptance by Muslims? Can any of you face any of the facts of Mohammed’s life with dignity? Reality is welcome here. In over 6 months of asking many simple questions, not one Muslim except one who was afraid, Tamara, ever responded.
the above so-called cartoon is not funny because it has no truth in it. Wilders is against lies, against fascism, against murder and brutality. His defence of his country and people who have the same ideals as he does, kindness, tolerance, fairness and equality, are not shared by his country’s elite powermongering leaders who collude with the enemy. Only the natives share his concern, for the reason that they see how decades of appeasement of the criminally insanity of Islam has made their country and France, Sweden, Denmark, England so dangerous now that natives can not venture into whole towns unless they want to get mugged, raped, beaten and killed – by the ‘Peaceful Ones’ – MUSLIMS – because they hate us. Infidels are Kuffar and no matter if you appease them cluelessly as the above hateful idiot has, we are all slotted for destruction. Get a grip, people, do you want to live or do you want to lie down and wag your tails (they call us all dogs, you morons) as the Muslims lean over you for your last look at life, into the hateful eyes of an axe-weilding Murderous Muslim – (actually that is a bit of an oxymoron) because to refuse to agree to the murder doctrines of his Koran, the commandments of Allah The Great Deceiver, is to deserve the death penalty of stoning or beheading yourselves…
You have the choice of choosing life or death, its all up to you. If you want to live under tyranny, go ahead, accept, appease, tolerate everything til they achieve Islam’s goal as stated in the Koran and repeated daily in Mosques right here under your noses.
I won’t. Max won’t. Filthy Kuffar won’t. Sergei Bourachaga will not, Geert Wilders won’t, Theo van Gohg did not, Ayan Hiris, Wafa Sultan, her husband, a good Muslim, will not, either. We know your agenda, and this, despite the fact of our media’s collusion and treacherous lies to us. Go on, you are free to be an idiot, but even Muslims themselves won’t like you and will do their duty as prescribed upon you and your lying little vocal chords, when the shit hits here in America big-time.
And our friend in India, infidel Ravi. He certainly won’t, because he is a true man.
Oh, and Hitler was right: “It is a good thing for leaders (like him and many of our very own past and present for decades, who devise, collude with evil) that the populace does not think”.
Tell a lie loud enough long enough and the people will accept it as the truth.
HITLER
My friend Filthy Kuffar and I are most definitely NOT SATISFIED with what we see happening to our countrymen and across the world, infidels being murdered, raped, stoned, mutilated, and now, coming here to our own towns, with imudence and hatred. The Muslims are the only ones who are attacking them – DAILY, ALL OVER THE WORLD. Now in Libya the people are being killed because the have not managed to accept the reality that it is their RELIGION WHICH DEMANDS BLOODSHED, and so have not managed to stand up to a MURDEROUS GOD AND HIS PROPHET – so GENOCIDE RESULTS – BLOODSHED IS HIS ONLY FINAL GOAL.
Egypt also, Tunisia, Yemen…everywhere Islam reigns uncontested, bloodshed prevails, every day, in the most heinous, inhuman ways possible. Can you imagine – using chidlren as sex slaves and throwing them out to die, afterward? It happens in Saudi Arabia every week, for the fact that even though they are our allies, there is a corrupt evil spirit which presides over their countries – even as individuals are not part of the actual rapes, murders, they do not speak out against it, because of fear and oppression – physically and spiritually.
See Trencherbone’s site. See Former Muslims United. See Geert Wilders Official Webblog. See Democratic Egypts webblog of Maged Salamah – good Muslims, read up if and when you can, you will be more amazed the more vile truth you learn about the evil of Islam. Allah is your ENEMY. Mohammed needs to be DENOUNCED FOR BRUTALITY TO ALL PEOPLE. Including a small child, – none other than your revered and adored, much-named-after girl wife, AISHA.
(women please read about Aisha and Rouby on Maged Salamah’s webblog, he got all of the sources from the Saudi Arabian Government’s website) ‘Mohammed to Muslim Men: Your Wives are Goats” (such a cute goat picture standing in the doorway, you will love it) and ‘Why Muslims Behead Infidels’ and ‘My conversation with a veiled Egyptian Girl’ cracks me up I can hardly stand it.
That man is brave.
Sorry, meant to write ‘with Impudence’ (not imudence)
Now, so I don’t fall into black depression because over one 1000 Libyans are being killed so far by a good Muslim and his good Muslim obedient mercenaries, i will print out that cute photo of the little black wife I mean goat in the doorway and remembe to pray for those poor women whose only function is to bear more babies to those monsters who hate women. Oh My God – I can’t stand it. What a crime to little boys, natural and pure, to be deliberately made to hate their female relations.
Ingrid – the people being killed in Libya are Muslims too. Having read everything you have posted here, I would think you would be celebrating their deaths. The world has less Muslims, just like in your hopes and dreams.
People, beware of liars who hate truth. We here on this site are defending human rights. We are against genocide. Period. We are against lies, period.
Therefore we ARE AGAINST THE ISLAM, PERIOD.
And any people who are not against it, are FOR THE BRUTALITY DEMANDED BY ISLAM. PERIOD.
Libyans, Egyptians, Tunisians, Yemenis, who love democracy, and life, and your babies, your women, your boys and your girls, your donkeys and your black dogs too, your black goats, your black cats and your black neighbors too, we are with you in your struggle against tyranny, and don’t wish for you to die, we feel helpless with the collusive, deceptively evil leaders WE HAVE – We don’t like Obamma who love true freedom and democracy and we are sorry he had anything to do with the Egyptian shit. It wasn’t our doing. He is totally dismantling our freedoms here and he wants to start bloodshed over there on a larger scale than already. Never mind his lying words, see his actions. We wish you help, but with leaders like this, there is no human help. Allah is your enemy. Obamma is freedom’s enemy as were those politicians who lied and said ‘Islam is a peaceful religion’ so many decades. We hate liars on here. Geert Wilders hates liars and murderers. Geert is for you, we are for you, come out of the tyrannical Lies of Islam and that is your only hope.
Yah hates your predicament, He wants you to live. All who hate what’s being done by brutal people he wishes to help. Call upon him and he will answer. He loves you, he gave you life, wishes no one but the evil ones who lie and murder you to die. Yahue is our only hope. Call upon Me in the Day of Trouble…Jeremiah 33:3 I think. I think this is the day of trouble for the world, it looks like it, don’t you think so?
Stop beating your wives, stop chopping your little girls clitorises, stop beheading your young boys and girls, stop cutting off hands and feet, stop the brutality of the circumcision evil brutal ritual to Molech, stop the raping of boys and infidels, stop the murders and the lies of Allah, who is Mohammed’s personal devil. Please.
Yah doesn’t want you to live like that. Yahushua will come and put an end to this madness and wickedness, hopefully soon – but still, not soon enough. come out of it, people. Don’t hurt each other. Qaddafi, sons, get in touch with your hearts of flesh and blood humanity – stop the killing, stop the fear, your people are your friends, not your enemies. Just Say No to Allah. Just say Go To Hell, Mohammed the child rapist and murderer who started this all.
Please. Shalom, please.
Yes Muslims, will you stop beheading your children for just one second to listen to Ingrid’s sweet words of love for you? We must get Ingrid over to Libya at once – how could anyone choose their religion over her charm?
How can anyone choose Islamic religion when the facts of Mohammed, its founder, are known?
The facts aren’t that widely circulated among the masses… only the Imams and those with much leisure time to read history know these things. Once they do find out the horror, something must be done. If nothing is done, more humanity is lost. Sitting on the fence in the face of these facts is not tenable for normal human beings. Decisions must be made. Between humanity, truth and love – versus the lying, murderous hatred of Allah and Mohammed. Putting off the decision for the sake of saving your lives and your children’s lives, friends lives, until chance for safety is understandable; yet what of the millions of Muslims safely now in the US, and England, Denmark, Sweden, etc? Why are they not denouncing Islam? that is the troubling, dangerous thing.
Because they are FOR IT, SUPPORT IT, AND ARE SLAVES TO THE BRUTAL ONE.
This fact is seen in the horrible crimes done in the name of Allah mostly in Europe, but it is happening here too. We just aren’t being told about them all. Only the few they must tell us about like Aasiya Hassan’s beheading, the girls’ clitorectomies and mutilations massing in Colorado, and Nur Amaleki’s murder by Jeep Cherokee in Arizona parking lot by her Daddy, the hateful Muslim, with Mommy’s agreement? The Dark Ages are coming here to a town, your town, people. Her crime? Aasiya wanted to be divorced and get her children away from her evil beating husband.
Nur’s crime which Daddy hated her for? She was grown and living with her boyfriend. He tried to kill both her and her boyfriend’s mother at the same time, going to a Mexican restaurant on a sunny day in Phoenix.
He is not sorry. He never will be. Until he is burning in hell, because he only likes himself. How do you describe a devil, if not one who tries to destroy others in most painful way, breaching trust, betraying humanity, intent on complete and total maximum destruction of the good and innocent? These men who commit these crimes are devils in human form. They are psychopaths and sadists. Their religion was the cause of these brutal crimes, these murders of their own families, they are good Muslim men, as they will all tell you.
And you don’t even care – those who defend Islam – about the hundreds of thousands of women who are buried alive, and girls, or stabbed, raped and stoned to death for being raped, (a 14 year old was kidnapped and raped recently and her parents strangled her as she begged for mercy, because ‘their honour’ was besmirched by her rape????) burnt alive, beheaded, many times in front of their families – for just talking to a man, or for anything at all they imagine in their evil minds, fed by Islam’s hatred for humanity.
Not to mention that Muslims have this horrible habitual penchant for years of raping boys.
Is all this not demonic? You say it is their right? NO WAY, IT IS NOT.
But it IS their RELIGION.
John,
Very short. I’m getting a bit tired of your anti-Right rhetoric.
I thought it was possible to discuss this honestly, but I guess I was being too optimistic, I’m sorry to say.
First of all, you use the standard bail-out arguments of Islam apologists, saying al those violent passages in the Quran are misinterpretations and…the BIble contains them as well. I wonder if you ever read the Quran, despite you’re saying so. Well, maybe you’ve read it subjectively, who knows. The simple fact is, that there ARE violent passages in the Quran and many of them. It is NOT a question of interpretation, it simply is. Period, fact. No beating around the bush, no interpretation or taking out of context!!! There’s no way you can whitewash it.
Furthermore, you say the BIble too has violent passages. Certainly, but this is DESCRIPTIVE. That doesn’t make it right, ofcourse, and you must be critical about it: most literature from around that time is very violent, perhaps because it were violent times and victory’s were very important. This refers also to the Quran, of course. The Bible is written as a novel, wherein the protagonists are interacting with each other. There’s very little to none direct calling for violence to the reader. THere’s just no denying that. I pity those who equate Christianity with Islam. THere are similarities of course, but when it comes to inciting violence and call to violence, there’s no comparing the two. Just fact!
I leave the vegetarian stuff up to you.
You say I look at the worse of a group and decide to judge the whole group accordingly. Now where did you get that idea? I was saying that if a muslim does not want to consider to reflect on his own beliefs, I have a hard time getting a fruitful conversation with him or her. It’s like talking to an orthodox Christian. You can talk your ears off, but it doesn’t get through to him or her. When muslims don’t see the violent passahes in their Quran or say it is a question of interpretation, I’m done. Period! This is not being bigoted, it is using common sense. I will have the same problem with anyone who doesn’t want to use common sense or is incapable of it. I wil have the same problem with orthodox Christians, Jews, HIndus, Boedhists, Astrologians, witchcraft idiots and what not.
About the implied contradiction about not being interested in the passages containing the prescription of circumcision and having a problem with the violent passages in the Quran. Fact is, we already do have laws agains circumcision (at least female), so that’s fine. We also have laws against inciting to violence, yet nothing is done about it when it comes to the Quran. Now that’s criminally inconsistent, isn’t it?
About the minority. It doesn’t matter if it is a minority, the violence is still there. I don’t mean that the minority equates the whole community, but the fact that it is a minority doesn’t change the fact that these crimes and the forcing of Islam upon society do occur, does it? I don’t judge the whole group according to a minority, but the fact is that the minory draws alot of attention, is very dominant and extremely annoying. Furthermore, almost no attempts are being made within the muslim community to do something about it. That I find troublesome.
About crime statistics. Do you realy link crime exclusively to poverty? You say discrimination in Europe causes these crime rates. That’s odd, gays are being discriminated against (you, Christiany has a track record in that area), yet they hardly show up in these statistics. Furthermore, muslima’s do very well here in Holland and they go in masses to the universities. How is it than that the muslim boys don’t do the same thing? If muslima’s have the oppurtunity, how come we see so few muslim boys in higher education and universities? Could it have got something to do with culture? With Islam maybe? I’m not saying, just asking.
Are muslims inherently more proned to crime? Of course not. But…when confronted with a “alien” culture, things are different. The fact is, muslim youth don’t act out traditional crime, but more violent crimes, like harassing, bullying, beating up gays and Jews (that’s true) and just being fresh and violently abusive. These are not your typical robbery or dealing drugs. Furthermore, this behavior is a reaction to the party of Geert Wilders? Hey, you’ve got it backwards, my friend, this violence of muslim youth is the reason for the forming of the PVV, thank you.
How come it isn’t the case in Canada? O yeah, the Left in America and Canada thinks their muslim population has integrated well, unlike in Europe, and that they are truly moderate and civilised. The point is, the population isn’t large enough yet to cause trouble, unlike here in Europe. Certainly here in the Netherlands, where the population density is very high. I’m not saing the muslim community is bad or whatever, just that it is typical of a larger muslim community in the West to cause trouble eventually. Look at history all around the world. It;s not discrimination against muslims, it’s not poverty, it’s ISLAM! And not Islam perse, but a culture drenged in it for centuries.
As for Islam not falling under freedom of religion, well it does. But when you look at it technically, our constitution states that every INDIVIDUAL is free to adhere to any religion. Yet, the Islamic jurisprudence states that leaving Islam is forbidden (punishable by death). So, there’s no freedom of religion within Islam and therefor it technically can not qualify for demands on this freedom of religion as stated in the constitution. I’m not saying to ban Islam, of course not, it’s just a critical foot note on the subject. That’s all.
About literature on my approach to Islam. Well, the Quran and the Hadith obviously. That should be literature enough to be very critical about Islam, to say the least. I also recommend: Islamic jurisprudence: according to the four Sunni Schools: Al-Fiqh ‘Ala Al-Madhahib Al-Arba ‘Ah by Abd al-Rahman al Jaziri. Very enlightning. Although it’s a sugar coated version of the real Shariah, this is very chilling literature indeed. Written by a moderate, if not enlighted scholar from Saudi-Arabia.
Finally, I give you credit for your last statement: deal with extremes within Islam without resorting to bigotry gainst minorities. Still, you cannot bring about change by being nice and polite. How do you think Christianity has been enlighted? By nice conversations and mutual understanding? Please, Christianity was under assault in the 17th and 18th century more so than Islam has ever been. Only through clash and real rebellion can change come about. So too with Islam. We must be critical and downright offensive, because only then will people do something. Freedom of speech entails the FREEDOM TO OFFEND! Otherwise there’s no freedom of scpeech. Right now, this freedom to offend is being criminally prosecuted.
Well, you undoubtedly will have your criticism and your misinterpretation of my thinking, but that’s okay. I was hoping to have an intellectual honest debate, but at this point, I don’t keep my hopes up.
Still, wish you the best.
And any mother who willingly agrees/takes part in delivering her daughter for the brutal satanically torturous cutting of her genitalia, to please her husband, should be treated as the other criminals who mutilate other helpless people whose rights are wholly disregarded are, same as those who commit the felony of ‘malicious intent to wound’ – this is WHAT IT IS.
This should also be for boys as well, of course. At least the way its done in hospitals and by the traditional, Rabbinic method which is just as brutal. These boys will never be the same, psychologically after that Satanic procedure, I have seen it done and never knew they did it like that.
Parents should see a movie of it done, and they would REVOLT AGAINST IT.
Praapje,
I’m equally tired of your anti-Muslim, anti-freedom of speech and religion, apologist-for-facists-and-racists rhetoric. But hey, that’s life. You have to live with people who’s politics you find repulsive.
“First of all, you use the standard bail-out arguments of Islam apologists, saying al those violent passages in the Quran are misinterpretations and…the BIble contains them as well. I wonder if you ever read the Quran, despite you’re saying so. Well, maybe you’ve read it subjectively, who knows. The simple fact is, that there ARE violent passages in the Quran and many of them. It is NOT a question of interpretation, it simply is. Period, fact. No beating around the bush, no interpretation or taking out of context!!! There’s no way you can whitewash it.” I have not once denied that there are violent passages in the koran. I have stated that the question of whether those passages should be interpreted as a mandatory, presciptive duty on Muslims to actively seek out and kill non-Muslims, as you have insisted. And the answer is, no – mainstream Islamic thoughts does not view them as such. You think it does, and you are wrong. I’m sorry that bothers you, but you are wrong. I have also stated that the bible contains equally violent passages. And similarly, mainstream Christian thought no longer considers these an instruction to actively kill non-Christians. So if I use your (faulty) logic, I could just as easily say that the violent passages of the bible are NOT a question of interpretation. Period, fact. No beating around the bush, no interpretation or taking out of context!!! There’s no way you can whitewash it. So just admit it Praapje, this jsutifies a wave of massive political and religious repression towards Christians, just as you think that the violent passages of the koran justify a wave of political repression against Muslims. Period, fact. No beating around the bush.
“There’s very little to none direct calling for violence to the reader.” You are wrong again. I suggest you read the bible. Leviticus is a particularly violent book. I requires adherents to stone homosexuals to death. It’s a pity you don’t consider stoning homosexuals to death violence. Cause that’s really fucked up.
“As for Islam not falling under freedom of religion, well it does. But when you look at it technically, our constitution states that every INDIVIDUAL is free to adhere to any religion. Yet, the Islamic jurisprudence states that leaving Islam is forbidden (punishable by death). So, there’s no freedom of religion within Islam and therefor it technically can not qualify for demands on this freedom of religion as stated in the constitution. I’m not saying to ban Islam, of course not, it’s just a critical foot note on the subject. That’s all.” You obviously don’t have the first idea of how the constitutional provision has been interpreted and applied. For someone who likes to write as if you understand Islam and the constitution, you are surprisingly ignorant about both. Go read a some constitutional law cases and get back to me.
” I was hoping to have an intellectual honest debate, but at this point, I don’t keep my hopes up” This is difficult to do when you are willfully uninformed about mainstream Islamic thought adn determined to hang on to your pre-conceived prejudices about Islam gained through exposed to bigoted commentators. It is a shame, I think.
I think my underlying problem with everything you have writen, Praapje, is that I have no idea what you are actually proposing as a politcal program to address issues of Islamic extremism. For instance, for each of Wilders’ proposals, you have said you are against them, but then go on to defend the ideas behind them. It seems your calls for action amount to nothing more than non being “politically correct”. Which in the Right (I’m using that sarcastically – because you know you can’t take anyone seriously who capitalizes the “Left” – as you have done – as if it is some uniform, homogeous body politic) usually just means being intolerant and hateful towards minority groups. Your only prescriptive suggestions for action seem to be confronting moderate Muslims and telling them that, despite the fact that they don’t interpret their religion to call for the active killing of non-Muslims, they don’t actually know what their religion says, and then politely explaining to them that it is actually: (i) not a religion but a totalitarian political philosophy; (ii) inherently violent; and (iii) must be denounced and destroyed in order for the person to integrate into a western democracy. And once the person is confronted with these “truths” they will become enlighted, westernizes democrats and no longer Muslims – viola! – problem solved! But of course, in reality, the only reasonable response by a moderate Muslim to taht kind of dialogue or confrontation would be to say: you don’t have a fucking clue what your talking about and you don’t know a fucking thing about my religion. Which would be entirely true, of course. So I really fail to see how your political program offers any solution whatsoever to the problem of Islamic extremist. Would you mind laying out your policy preferences on this issue (if they indeed amount to more than I have suggested) and explain how you believe they will help in confronting the issue at hand?
ps. Could you please provide the page references in Abd al-Rahman al-Jaziri’s book where he explains how each of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence have come to the conclusion that the Islamic scriptures incluce an active duty on all Muslims to seek out and kill all non-Muslims. Cause this is what you have suggested, I am confident that you will be able to provide them for me.
Praapje, do not lend any semblance of dignity to his machinations against the truth you write. He hates the truth and hates everyone who is for it. There is no hope for him. Wasting your time. We appreciate your posts, and just because no MUSLIMS DARE TRY TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS, doesn’t mean they aren’t looking at this. We are in a war.
May I suggest anyone desirous of facts from the Islamic sources themselves, if truly interested in facts, avail themselves of the free,
offical site of the Saudi Arabian Government?
Quran/Koran,
Hadiths, EVERYTHING on Mohammed’s life, deeds, words, thoughts, revelations, Aisha’s own words. You could say it is the official website of ALLAH HIMSELF, SINCE WE ALL KNOW ALLAH’S WORDS ARE CORRECT, UNCHANGEABLE, AND INERRANT. The Saudi Government would not dare to put up anything erroneous about their God Allah and their prophet, the pedophile (child RAPIST). Shamefully criminal Muslims who know this and adhere to this shit religion of destruction of humanity, READ IT AND KNOW WHY WE HATE ISLAM and have lost all patience and tolerance for your lies.
And he should be one to talk, with the lame stuff he has posted here (grammar being the least of his faults).
You can see in his posts (but you’re better off not) he is completely corrupt, slickly deceptive, trying to sound ‘reasonable’ while harbouring utter hatred of good people and the truth. This level of cunning, perverted, insane evil – juxtaposed with ignorance – is just one of the depths to which human beings aspire, once they’ve given up their mind to evil. He is not human, only human in body.
Hey John,
Just quick:
Not interested in comparing Islam to Christianity. Both are hocus-pocus to me, pure nonsense. Any ideology is. Yes, Islam is a political doctrine with a dosis of religion (look at Shari’ah).
No, Christians are (no longer) a threat to society, because of the Enlightenment (exept for some abortiondoctor-killers). Fact is, some muslims are acting hostile towards our society and many muslims hold anti-western views (PEW-research). Furthermore, there are forming muslim-enclaves all over Europe. Many muslims living in such enclaves are born here, but don’t even speak the language (that is, no as their first language). These muslims deliberately stick with each other and create a dichotomous society. Now, that is dangerous.
About Islam falling under the protection of the law: I’m talking about DUTCH law, article 6a of the constitution: every INDIVIDUAL has the right to practise his or her faith….
I have not offered a political program to deal with these issues. I don’t think that’s a crime. is it? As or defending PVV’s proposals: I’m not. I’m just shedding some light on it and bring some nuance to it, so that people like you can understand. I do not see everything black and white, you know. You can actually see the mechanics and idea’s behind a proposal and still do not agree with it.
As for the literature by Abd al-Rahman al Jaziri: try page 576 where it states that apostasy is punishable by death, although there is some seriues debate going on among scholars about this topic. Now, that’s comforting to hear, isn’t it. While you’re at it: try “The punishment of apostasy in Islam” (Ahmad Shafaat, 2009), ” Freedom of religion, apostasy and Islam” (Hassan Saeed 2004) and “Muslim apostates cast out and at risk from faith and family” (London Times, 0ctober 15th 2009). Makes very nice literature.
Now, where do you get you information about the cosy and friendly religion of peace?
Finally, where do you get the idea I’m a bigot, islamophobe and last but not least a racist? And even anti-religion and anti-free speech? I’m being critical and bring nuance to certain issues. Maybe you can define freedom of speech as you see it? Me, I have one line to draw: you can say everything, exept a call to violence, threatening or deliberately lying. That’s it. You can offend someone as much as you can, society itself should condemn such rhetoric. And if you’re not able to defend yourself, than a healthy society should certainly stand up for this person (or group). But…leave the court out of these issues!!! It’s a tough world and you cannot civilise it by regulating it to the bone.
What’s your stand towards Shari’ah? Just curious.
Ingrid,
Yes, I try and try. Trying to get my head around the rhetoric John is spousing. I try to be polite and patient, but when confronted with such blinded love for minorities it’s hard to keep serious. I’m beginning to understand your warnings against his postings.
Well, John will probaby see it as a victory of his “superior” arguments, but sometimes it’s even more intelligent to let someone shoutl about, give him a pet on the head and say: “Everything will be allright.”
Ingrid,
What is your stand on the uprising among muslim leaders and other muslims to the upcoming King hearings? I’m simply stunned. You should say that the muslim community would be very glad this is happening, because this way one can take out the rotten apples out of the community. Instead they play the bigotry card again. How stupid can you get?
Anyway, what’s your opinion on this?
Praape, I know. I know how you must be feeling. (the end of first reply of yours, that’s funny ..!..) You were very very patient. You even calmed me down, at many times, when I printed out the posts and read them later, reading your replies which come through very low-key and very calming really helped me regain composure. This issue is so vital for everyone – yet, as a Westerner, as ‘John’ claims, his words are just simply BIZARRE.
Praapje, I had just written you a long reply and it disapeared and I am so upset about that…because I have to leave – I did not know about the Rodney King being involving angry Muslims too? I think that is bizarre, but may be a ploy by the elite to create more chaos,…I will go see more news, so I don’t know what to think. what do you think?
thank you Praapje, you tried and tried. they need my computer for someone else. I am on the run from a Muslim guy who has continually threatned my life so I do not have one of my own! Thank you you are a good infidel and mamy people are reading your posts from above, they will not go unheeded.
bless you Praapje, Yah keepyou safe.
Praapje, I was leaving in a hurry by the time i wrote fast reply after losing first one to you, above, so didn’t get to say, as you said, this Muslim anger over the King ordeal being brought to the fore is very very weird; like you say, I thought, its a good thing, so why are they angry, they should be glad that corruption and cruelty is being reviewed, to cleanse the whole corrupt system.
Muslims – why are you angry about this expose, in hopefully, sincere attempt to root out racism – true racism?
Praapje – could it be related to the Muslim racism against Black people? Could they be this bad, even in this area, too?
Muslim Prophet called Black People Raisin Heads. He also denigrated them in other ways – as Muslims today love to use black people as slaves, see its been happening inSudan for such a long long time.
Black people – where are you on this, why do you let Muslims fool you so much? Muslims are liars – they are opportunistic liars, why? because their religion told them do that.
Well, Praapje, you have done your trying to reason together with some people will be scorned and this response from a couple of hateful poisonous liars here is what you will get always – there is always rejection, never acceptance of independent thought, honesty, and your hard effort to reaon with their unreasonableness, to even humble yourself in trying to reach them with your love for humanity and kindliness is sometimes, sadly, tragically, perversely – even hated by those who only live to serve the Liar and Destroyer of Mankind.
but we see your spirit, good tries, and we have all benefited from this sacrifice of your time and life and your good heart.
Raj Karega Khalsa. Aaki Rahe Na Koy.
The Pure of Heart Shall Rule (one day).
All hurdles will be Overcome.
Shalom, May Yah be with you Praapje and all Inifidels and Apostates, and those thinking of becoming one.
Praapje,
“Fact is, some muslims are acting hostile towards our society and many muslims hold anti-western views (PEW-research).” Maybe this is true – I would like to see the data. Of course, I also saw some poll results just yesterday that showed a direct correlation between Mosque attendence among American Muslims, and committment to democratic, American values. That is, the more often an American Muslim attends Mosque, the more likely that person is to believe in democracy and core American values. So yeah… lots of Muslims probably are hostile to western values (I won’t use your phrase “our values” because, quite frankly, I don’t share your values and I do share the values of democracy, freedom, tolerance and compassion that all the Muslims I know hold dear). The question is: what should we do about it. I have asked you what you would do about it and you have no answer. My answer is striving for greater integration through the various mechanisms I described earlier. I think campaigns of hatred bigotry, such as advocated by Wilders, are both stupid and counterproductive.
“About Islam falling under the protection of the law: I’m talking about DUTCH law, article 6a of the constitution: every INDIVIDUAL has the right to practise his or her faith” I don’t know Dutch constitutional jurisprudence, but I would be shocked if it did not protect Islam as a religion such that banning the Koran would be uncontitutional. When a legal document says “every individual has a right to practice their religion” it required a certain context to give meaning to that right. An individual cannot freely practice their religion if their holy book is banned. Period.
“I have not offered a political program to deal with these issues. I don’t think that’s a crime. is it?” It is certainly not a crime. Though one would think that if you are so concerned about these issues, you would take a second to think about how to address them.
“As for the literature by Abd al-Rahman al Jaziri: try page 576 where it states that apostasy is punishable by death” Ok, fine. Though this was not the question. You stated that Islam commands all Muslims to seek out and kill all non-Muslims. You were wrong, and so cannot provide a reference. Many extremist Muslims do believe apostacy is cause for the death penalty. The vast majority do not. And that is why there is not a single Muslims democracy (Turkey, Iraq, Albania, the crental asian states, bangladesh, indonesia, etc) has a law on the books that punished apostacy with death.
“Now, where do you get you information about the cosy and friendly religion of peace?” Many and varied sources.
“Finally, where do you get the idea I’m a bigot, islamophobe and last but not least a racist? And even anti-religion and anti-free speech?” I said you were an apologist for racists and bigots. Wilders is a racist and a bigot. His policies are monsterous and would involve the complete destruction of freedom of speech and religion (by banning Islam). This would be the most reprsesive policy implemented in Europe since WWII. And you are ok with that, and have expressed mild support or indifference to the prospect of that happening.
“Maybe you can define freedom of speech as you see it? Me, I have one line to draw: you can say everything, exept a call to violence, threatening or deliberately lying” I have a similar definition. Freedom to say anything short of explicit calls to violence or threats of violence (that definitely does not include deliberate lying generally – but certain acts of fraud might fall within this category. Wilders wants to ban the koran and Islam. That would mean the recitation of koranic verses would be illegal, as well as countless other acts involved in the practice of Islam that involve speech, and do not constitute incitement to violence. That is why he is a danger to free speech. But for some reason, that doesn’t bother you. Why? Does your definition of free speech include the ability for a Muslim to speak a prayer? Does it include the right of an Imam to hold a service at a Mosque in which there is no hostility or incitement or violence expressed towards any group of people? If you believe these rights are important and should be protected, why are you completely indifferent to the fact that a popular politician in your country is seeking to destroy those rights?
Finally, it’s nice to see you’ve bonded with Ingrid. It makes me feel very assured in characterizing you as an apologist for bigots.
Ps. Here is a link to the study referenced above:
http://www.muslimamericansurvey.org/
John,
eh…Wilders wanting to ban Islam? Where did you get that idea?
Sure, Wilders has proposed a ban on the Koran, but that’s just to get the ball rolling, so to speak. He’s trying to get a discussion on this topic.
Wilders certainly does not want to ban Islam, he wants muslims to integrate more. Sure, his methods are confrontational instead of taking peace loving actions. Like I’ve said: real change does not come about by just being polite, you know. I do not agree with every proposal he has done, but than…I do not agree in full with so many people. Wilders does not talk about muslims in general, but the ones who do not integrate well or / and are criminals. His methods include regulations that confront the whole of the muslim community and yeah…I do think such regulation can be positive so the community will make some real efforts to confront this radicalisation.
You say the more muslims attend the mosque, the more they will integrate, according to some polls. It’s just a matter of which poll you choose to believe, isn’t it? I’m sure there are many muslims who attend mosque which are very well integrated and truly peacefull. The fact is that every muslim terrorist has attended a mosque before they committed their actions. So, mosques are also being used to recruit and radicalise muslims.
Okay, because you think it’s odd I’m so concerned about this issue and have no solutions for it, here’s one: there should be an institution for educating imams within the country. This education should be mandatory for all future imams within the country. This education centre should not be ruled by muslims alone, but also by non-muslims experts in the field and an independant governmental organisation should control all the actions. That way you don’t get radical imams stirring up the place. This is just one proposal of mine. I’ve more if you want.
John, I’ve not bonded with Ingrid. I’m just making conversation and yes…we share some common values and ideas. I repeat: some! Why do you see everything black and white? I don’t get it.
You say that banning the koran should be unconstitutional. Sure it is, but there must be a discussion among muslims about those violent passages. And yes, among Christians as well. But…don’t you think it’s odd that we can ban Mein Kampf (because it’s racist and what not) but we cannot ban another book, because it’s religion? Don’t you see something wrong here? Sure people are free to practise their religion, but when it comes to adhering to values which are contrary to the constitution, what than? There are Christians here who refuse to get antibiotica and such for their children, because it conflicts with their ideas about God, but the government insists they take it for the sake of the child. And the mormons can’t practise their polygamy anymore, because it conflicts with the constitution. Now, can the same be applied to muslims who do things counter to the constitution? Freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can do everything you want, you know.
Also, many demands by muslims (some are realy outrageous, like demanding street workers wearing long pants during hot weater, because short pants offend them!!!) should be approached very critical in order to save the separation of church and state. Any demand that involves seperating man and woman should be declined at once! Any demand for a prayer room in a secular school should be declined! And many more such demands. That’s not to say muslims can’t demand anything, of course, as long as it is in harmony with the existing values we share.
So, muslims can do anything they want, because…we all live in the same country. But….many muslims (or at least the ones who speak out so-called on behalf of a whole community) make ridiculous demands that endanger our secular society. Wilders does not want to ban the islam, that’s ridiculous, he wants muslims to participate more. That’s all.
“eh…Wilders wanting to ban Islam? Where did you get that idea” You have followed this by admiting that he wants to ban the Koran. Banning the Koran is, in effect, banning Islam. Just as banning the bible would rightfully be viewed as an effective ban on Christianity.
“Sure, Wilders has proposed a ban on the Koran, but that’s just to get the ball rolling, so to speak. He’s trying to get a discussion on this topic.” I don’t know what you mean by this. It is a rather casual response to a disgustingly repressive policy. Do you mean that you think he doesn’t actually want to ban the Koran, but he is just saying he wants to in order to start a discussion? Or that you just don’t think banning the Koran is that big a deal, so now lets move onto other parts of the “discussion”?
“Wilders certainly does not want to ban Islam, he wants muslims to integrate more. Sure, his methods are confrontational instead of taking peace loving actions. ” I do not believe this to be true. He has said many times that Islam and is inherently incompatible with democratic values and that it does not even constitute a religion, but a facist, totalitarian political ideology. There is no way one can believe, at the same time, that: (i) a group of people are facist totalitarians; and (ii) they can be nicely integrated into society.
“Like I’ve said: real change does not come about by just being polite, you know. I do not agree with every proposal he has done, but than…I do not agree in full with so many people. Wilders does not talk about muslims in general, but the ones who do not integrate well or / and are criminals. His methods include regulations that confront the whole of the muslim community and yeah…I do think such regulation can be positive so the community will make some real efforts to confront this radicalisation” – That’s fine if you think that. I couldn’t possibly disagree more. When you approach someone and tell them that their religion isn’t actually a religion at all, that they are actually a facist, that they have more responsibility than an average citizen to somehow stop bad actors that don’t have anything to do with them other than being co-religionists, that you are going to enact repressive political policies aimed at them, and that you are going to do all this while mocking and offending them at every opportunity, do you think that person is going to want to integrate into that surrounding society more, or less? It is quite obvious that Wilders’ aim to drive Muslims out, rather than integrate them. Every word he says, every action he takes and every poliocy he advocates is consistent with that aim and inconsistent with the aim of integrating Muslims into Dutch society.
“You say the more muslims attend the mosque, the more they will integrate, according to some polls. It’s just a matter of which poll you choose to believe, isn’t it?” Well, if I saw a poll that showed a correlation between mosque attendance and extremism, then I would have to choose which poll to believe based on my knowledge of surveyign methodology and statistical analysis. But that is not the case. I have seen one poll on this subject and it shows a correlation between mosque attendance and the embrace of western, democratic values. If you have seen a poll that conflicts with this result, feel free to post a link to it and I would be happy to look at it. It is certainly trye that some mosques promote radicalism. But if mosque attendance is correlated to democratic values in western countries, then banning the building of new mosques (as Widlers has proposed) would have a counterproductive effect. Which is, of course, if you belive the object of the policy is no dissuade radicalism. But I don’t believe that is the case. Wilders’ hates Muslims and banning the building of new mosques is the aim of the policy in itself (ie. the policy is not aimed at reducing radicalism, the point of the policy is the political and religious repression of Muslims).
“Okay, because you think it’s odd I’m so concerned about this issue and have no solutions for it, here’s one: there should be an institution for educating imams within the country. This education should be mandatory for all future imams within the country. This education centre should not be ruled by muslims alone, but also by non-muslims experts in the field and an independant governmental organisation should control all the actions. That way you don’t get radical imams stirring up the place. This is just one proposal of mine. I’ve more if you want.” – Do you honestly think this would work? First of all, I can guarantee you this is unconstitutional as a restriction on freedom of religion. Second, why would any Muslim follow an Imam who was only allowed to become an Imam by virtue of being designated as such by civil, secular authorities who are not Muslims? They just wouldn’t, and the practice of Islam would be driven underground. This is exactly the type of thing the Chinese government does with Catholics and Buddhists (ie. the government selection of the Penchen Lama). If you are proposing to align your countries policies on the practice of religion with those of a repressive communist government, I think you should be reconsidering those policies.
“John, I’ve not bonded with Ingrid. I’m just making conversation and yes…we share some common values and ideas. I repeat: some! Why do you see everything black and white? I don’t get it.” – I don’t. There are lots of shades of grey in every debate. But if you were to lay out a spectrum of tolerance to bigotry, Ingrid would be about a mile beyond the bigotry line. She is the most repulsively hateful individual I have ever come across. If there was every a case of black and white with respect to a person being a bigot, it is Ingrid.
“You say that banning the koran should be unconstitutional. Sure it is, but there must be a discussion among muslims about those violent passages. And yes, among Christians as well. But…don’t you think it’s odd that we can ban Mein Kampf (because it’s racist and what not) but we cannot ban another book, because it’s religion? Don’t you see something wrong here?” – Yes. I see somethign very wrong. Banning books is very, very wrong. In all cases.
“Sure people are free to practise their religion, but when it comes to adhering to values which are contrary to the constitution, what than? There are Christians here who refuse to get antibiotica and such for their children, because it conflicts with their ideas about God, but the government insists they take it for the sake of the child. And the mormons can’t practise their polygamy anymore, because it conflicts with the constitution. Now, can the same be applied to muslims who do things counter to the constitution? Freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can do everything you want, you know.” – Of course not. And that is not at all what I have suggested. The Netherland has an entire criminal code that deals with discrete criminal acts. And anything that a person does by virtue of their religion that contravenes those criminal acts is punished by the criminal justice system. No one is argument that if, for example, a Muslims committed murder because they thought it was justified in the Koran, they should be excused on religious grounds. But having a passage sit passively in a book is not a crime. And it should not be. That is all.
“Also, many demands by muslims (some are realy outrageous, like demanding street workers wearing long pants during hot weater, because short pants offend them!!!) should be approached very critical in order to save the separation of church and state. Any demand that involves seperating man and woman should be declined at once! Any demand for a prayer room in a secular school should be declined! And many more such demands. That’s not to say muslims can’t demand anything, of course, as long as it is in harmony with the existing values we share.” – I agree with you 100%. The question, in my mind, is how to deal with these issues. What I am arguing is that whipping up hysteria and hatred of all Muslims, as is Wilders’ intent, will further alienate all Muslims and this type of behaviour will increase. Because again, why would anyone want to integrate with a society that actively promotes hatred of them?
“So, muslims can do anything they want, because…we all live in the same country. But….many muslims (or at least the ones who speak out so-called on behalf of a whole community) make ridiculous demands that endanger our secular society. Wilders does not want to ban the islam, that’s ridiculous, he wants muslims to participate more. That’s all” – Again, I simply disagree. He has said many, many times that he wants to ban the Koran (which is, in effect, banning Islam) and prohibit the construction of Mosques. So under a Wilders government, Muslims will not be able to “do anything they want”. They will be subject to incredibly intrusive and repressive policies aimed at them for no reason other than that they are Muslims. To me, that is a problem. It is more than a problem – it is outrageous, and bigoted.
Look, I think in the end, we are interested in living in a similar type of society. But I think, very strongly, that the kind of proposals Wilders makes, and proposals like the one you made above, will not get us there. Rather, they will drive us much, much further away.
John,
Ah well, it’s obvious we disagree about the nature of Wilder’s proposals and about dealing with extremism within the muslim community.
Certainly I’m convinced you also want to battle this extremism, but you stress the need to reach out to the muslim community, while I think a certain pressure is needed. About my proposal: I don’t mean to regulate the whole curriculum, of course, but a certain check from time to time, just like the instutution we already have: the council of education which overseas all curriculum in all schools. The point is: we must not import any imam from abroad of which we know nothing about.
Yes, we must reach out to the muslim community to a certain extend, but we must be firm on the other hand also. You don’t teach a child just by being nice and polite. I don’t want to equate the muslim community to a child, but just for argument’s sake. As for confronting muslims with their ideology and say it is fascist….well, the ideology is, but the people are not. It’s a simple fact that it is fascist, all the criteria are there. There should be a widespread discussion among muslims about their teachings, just like Christianity has undergone in the past. Muslims should keep their religion, of course, but should renounce all the violence within the Koran and the Hadith. And here’s the problem: within Islam it’s not done to criticise the teachings and that should change. Our way of life can only be sustained with criticism, (self) reflection and scrutiny of every idea. So, we must encourage muslims to do this and that will take some pressure. How is it that in cabaret or stand up comedian we don’t hear jokes about Islam? We do that because we fear extremists. How come the muslim community does not deal with this properly? Is it unwillingness or helplesness? Either way, there must be something done about it.
What do you think of the Pete KIng hearings? Do you think it is discriminatory of a minority?