A Profile in Courage

An open letter to Geert Wilders:

Though we have not met, I feel as if I know you well. I have followed your trials—and trial—closely and, like many who are engaged in the same fight against Islamic supremacism and the various forms of jihad that confront us, I endorse your campaign on behalf of the West and its traditional liberties in every way that I can.

Indeed, I wonder if you are aware of the extent of your de facto “support network,” a majority in America who, according to a Pew Research Center survey, are “very concerned” about the rise of Islamic extremism, and certainly a significant minority of the increasingly vocal. The same may now be the case in your own country and in a number of other European nations as well—Switzerland and its minaret affair come immediately to mind—as ordinary people gradually come to realize the threat they are facing.

Of course, we can write off the political and intellectual elites who, through laziness, timidity, adherence to the craven doctrine of political correctness, and no doubt the profiteering impulse, are in bed with the succubus who would guzzle their blood. And this is no blood libel. In addition, you probably strike these presumably more decorous sensibilities as too blunt, aggressive or politically ambitious, which is clearly what prompts their efforts at character assassination against you. But your passionate resistance to the creeping Islamization of Europe prompts me in turn to ask: Does this in Wilders seem ambitious? In any event, pay no attention to these tergiversators. As Andrew Bostom writes, “The transparent agenda in characterizations of Wilders is to demonize Western Europe’s most informed and courageous politician resisting the actual jihadism…But the Swiss minaret referendum, and even more emphatically, burgeoning Dutch support for Wilders and his PVV, indicate that ordinary Europeans reject the capitulation to Islamic supremacism their cultural relativist media and political elites deliberately abet.”

In your fine speech to the British House of Lords on March 5, 2010, you established the principle, as you have many times before, that you and your Freedom Party do not “have a problem with Muslims as such.” You distinguish between law-abiding Muslims and the ideology of Islam based on the Koran. “There are many moderate Muslims,” you declare, “but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.” The first part of your proposition is a socially appropriate sentiment, but the second part begets a conceptual problem which is decidedly unpleasant to address.

Forgive me for suggesting that you probably had no choice but to make this subtle discrimination between the faithful and the faith, which implies a certain disconnect between the wish and the reality, as you must surely realize. You tread on very delicate ground here, as you are doubtlessly constrained to do in order to avoid alienating both “moderate Muslims” and non-Muslims who regard themselves as unprejudiced.

When you rightly assert that “Islam is not merely a religion [but] a totalitarian ideology,” note that the Koran “commands Muslims to establish shariah law,” claim that “Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life,” and go on to compare the Koran with Mein Kampf, quoting Winston Churchill to reinforce your thesis, the distinction you adduce between individual Muslims and the collective institution of Islam tends to collapse. For what you are really saying is that moderate Muslims cannot be devout Muslims or, in truth, cannot be Muslims at all. What sort of Muslim remains after you have factored out shariah law, effectively compared Muhammed to Hitler, and contended that the Koran should be outlawed, or at least designated as a species of hate literature, as you proposed in your letter to the newspaper De Volkskrant on August 8, 2007?

You now find yourself uncomfortably situated, so to speak, between the devil and the deep Red Sea. Not being a Muslim yourself, you don’t have the option of polemical emphasis that derives from rejecting the faith, becoming an apostate-on-principle or converting to another faith, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish, among others—all of whom took the second part of your logic to its inevitable terminus. They understood that one cannot honestly profess Islam without abiding by the decrees of the religion and its holy book, including the oft-repeated summons to kill or enslave the infidel, the structure of gender apartheid, the imposition of shariah, and a host of other draconian laws.

In other words, a “moderate Muslim” would have to live in a state of contradiction, and perhaps many do—as does, for example, freedom loving Tarek Fatah, Canadian author of Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State, who calls himself a “hardened secular Muslim.” What exactly is a secular Muslim, whether hardened or soft? Similarly, what could a “secular Christian” conceivably be other than some sort of mythical chimera? (It is different for Jews, of course; a “secular Jew” remains a Jew because the world persists in regarding him as such. But that is another matter.) Fatah is a good man and an important voice in the ongoing debate concerning Islam, but he cannot extricate himself from a legendary infatuation or acknowledge disagreeable historical and theological facts. One cannot cherry pick the Koran or romanticize Islamic history, as so-called “moderate Muslims” are obliged to do, without falling into incoherence. As a character in Hanif Kureishi’s The Black Album says, “our religion isn’t something you can test out, like trying out a suit to see if it fit! You gotta buy the whole outfit!” There is, to put it another way, no such beverage as Islam Lite. One drinks in the real thing or nothing; there is no substitute.

Bangladeshi author and former Muslim Abul Kasem, in a FrontPage Magazine interview, defines the majority of Muslims as believers “in name only.” Kasem is shockingly direct: the existence of a “moderate Muslim” is contingent upon a moderate Koran “since the life force of Islam is the Qu’ran.” But the Koran happens to be an extreme and violent document, and even if it is selectively ignored by practitioners of the faith, its fissile core can be activated at any time. For Kasem, as for the dissidents mentioned above, the term “moderate Muslim” or “secular Muslim” is an oxymoron. The use of the term “moderate Muslim,” he argues, is “truly misplaced” and muddles Western thinking in the attempt to defeat Islamic terror. I’m presuming this is an argument you too would candidly advance if the sociopolitical context were not so precarious, and if your place in Dutch society and as leader of a respectable political party permitted you to do so.

Still, you were on the money when, in a speech to the Dutch parliament, you compared Islam in Europe to a Trojan Horse. Here you were being perfectly forthright. Your metaphor was both mythologically and historically accurate. In 1529, the armies of Islam were camped before the gates of Vienna. They were beaten back. Today they are camped within the gates of Paris, the gates of Oslo, the gates of Malmo, the gates of Berlin, the gates of London, the gates of Birmingham, the gates of Brussels, the gates of Marseille, the gates of Amsterdam, and counting. In fact, as you and many of the politically aware—Bruce Bawer, Christopher Caldwell, Walter Laqueur, Bernard Lewis, the late Samuel Huntington, Melanie Phillips, Bruce Thornton, Claire Berlinski, Denis MacShane, Bat Ye’or, to name only a few—point out, Islam is now a major demographic force within the gates of Europe in its entirety. Vienna was only a temporary setback, a lost battle in a long and possibly successful war. Our ostensible sophisticates seem to have forgotten that Islamic time is not Western time.

I began this letter by assuring you that you have a far wider community of supporters than you might at times suspect. True, several conservative bien pensants and generally astute observers of the ideological world, such as Bill Kristol, Glenn Beck and Charles Krauthammer, have lately taken you to task on Fox News and elsewhere for your supposed intransigence, your explicitness and your “radical” stance vis à vis Islam, that is, your refusal to differentiate between a peaceable Islam and violent Islamism. The critical perspective adopted by these otherwise excellent writers toward the leftist collaboration with, or appeasement of, militant Islam, their awareness of the demographic menace posed by unchecked immigration, and the weaponized prose they habitually flourish would indicate they should be your allies rather than detractors.

So unfortunate a dereliction is highly problematic and, at first blush, inexplicable—unless, as a commenter to an article by Mark Steyn suggests, “perhaps the recent purchase of a substantial portion of News Corp.’s stock by a wealthy Saudi Arabian might be a factor in Krauthammer’s and Beck’s negative statements about Geert Wilders.” Diana West concurs: “this anti-Geert pundit solidarity will only delight stakeholder Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.” We have long known that Saudi money has infiltrated the media, the universities, the Hollywood illusion factory and the book publishing industry, with all the predictable consequences. But then, we also know that Kristol, Beck and Krauthammer are honorable men.

Maybe there is another explanation. Roger Simon hazards that Beck “is not particularly versed in European affairs”, which are plainly not his forte, and that Krauthammer may be subconsciously afraid that you are right, a likelihood “too depressing” to contemplate. For, Simon continues, “if Wilders is correct, and the line between Islam and Islamism is as blurred as the Dutchman posits, then we in the West are in very deep trouble indeed.” And this is a conclusion all too few of our intellectuals, “peace” constituencies, opinion shapers and power wielders, addicted to the ostrich syndrome and insulated from the mean streets of the real world, are willing to absorb. They have taken another route and are speeding down the highway to dhimmitude like Toyotas with stuck gas pedals. They would rather allow the approaching immiseration of the West at the hands of a resurgent Islam than stiffen their spines and act as they must if Western civilization is to survive. Which is why they do not want you in the game.

Nevertheless, despite such curious defections and betrayals, I think you may rest confident that you enjoy a stalwart following among those who have come to share both your fears and your salient assumptions. We monitor the court prosecution to which you have been subjected by a camarilla of judges who, as you say, “do not want to hear the truth about Islam.” As David Rusin shows in a compendious summary of “the growing deference to Islam in Europe’s courtrooms,” citing evidence of a most disturbing, if ludicrous, nature, “in the Netherlands, the bar association is leading the way to mollify Islamists.”

But there is a redeeming irony tunneling its way through these proceedings. You are in a win-win situation. A victory in court means you have been vindicated. A negative verdict also works in your favor, for a jail cell would give you an effective podium, though I doubt you would malinger there for long. It would then become glaringly obvious that your accusers are a pack of soi-disant anti-Dreyfusards, Vichy-type sellouts, cowards and hypocrites, and public demonstrations against your captors would be sure to follow. They are the ones in a self-inflicted bind, not you. Moreover, it is already common knowledge that your judges have substantially curtailed the number of expert witnesses you have called and are deliberating behind closed doors. Oddly enough, a bad day in court may translate into a good day at the polls. Indeed, according to some electoral prognostications, you may shortly find yourself the prime minister of your country.

The cake appears ready for the oven. If all goes well, the next election may actually install you in the seat of power or, failing that, position you as a power broker. You have only to keep on being yourself and, of course, you need to stay alive. You have the courage and outspokenness of your murdered fellow Amsterdammers, Pym Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, but you also have what they did not, 24/7 protection. And, to reiterate, you are not alone. A growing company of the likeminded stand behind you. One way or another, you cannot lose, at least not in the Netherlands.

So in conclusion, as the current idiom enjoins: Go for it!

  • aspacia

    Solway's argument could easily be turned into an antiChristian or antiJewish screed because there are huge tracts demanding stoning individuals to death in the Old Testament and the Torah. Yes, they do differ in many sections. Before attacking, read both the Jewish Torah and the Christian Old Testament.

    • Tanstaafl JW

      Why not read the Qur'an? While you are reading, remember that Muslims believe that the original Qur'an exists in Heaven and that everything in the Qur'an is the direct word of Allah. The Qur'an cannot be interpreted, modified, changed or even written in any other language than Arabic. Jews and Christians do not have to follow the Bible or the Torah exactly. Both faiths recognize that their holy books were written by human beings and are subject to interpretation.

      Neither book possesses the hatred, violence and lack of compassion that exist in the Qur'an.

    • Steely Irony

      Excuse me, chap, but you should note that – by definition – Christians focus on the New Testament, which effectively "corrects" the Old Testament. To boot, Christian and Jewish theologies comprise far, far more than the Old and New Testaments. You write like one of those beneficiaries of a "modern" education. You have the official narrative down pat, but your understanding of the issue runs about as deep as a balloon.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Swemson Swemson

        One might add that defending the barbaric teachings and behavior of Islam today, on the grounds of what some ancient Jewish and Christian texts said, all of which has been abandoned for centuries, is pretty pathetic, and it shows how far one has to stoop in an effort to defend the barbaric cult of islam.

        Basically, all aspacia is saying is:

        "Don't speak ill of the Arabs today, because a few thousand years ago, your ancestors did the same kind of stuff."


    • M Rob


      When was the last time you saw a Jew or a Christian being stoned on a TV, in a newspaper, photo, etc. Get your head out of your A$$ you moron.

    • tarleton

      When was the last women stoned to death by Jews and Christians? …Cretin
      Women in some Islamic countries are still under threat of stoning

    • http://pillaroftruth.com.au Adelaide

      aspacia –Because you are confounding Religion, and the Christian Religion with true Christianity you are partially right. The traditional influence and hearsay has influenced most of us. If your view of the Bible is correct why would the Lord complain in Hosea 6:6 “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Or to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:23 “and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done.” If people would take note of what the Bible actually teaches they would soon realize the difference between law, mercy and grace.

    • Democracy First

      You miss a few points. First, while there are indeed some violent passges or laws expressed in the Hebrew bible, and less but some in the Christian bible, their major themes are radically different than Islam's. The former principally calls for moral behaviour to earn favour with G-d. The latter principally calls for a peaceful existence. Islam calls for the same – for Muslims. For others it's perpetual war until they are subjugated and converted – mass murder being perfectly acceptable in that pursuit.

      Moreover, the vast majority of Jewish and Christian theologians and adherents do not believe their bibles to be G-d's exact word. Instead, they are man's best efforts to understand G-d greatly influenced by divine inspiration and, in the Christian case, many next to exact words of jesus himself – almost all passges of peace, none calling for war.

      Thus violent passges or ancient laws now deemed cruel and barbarous can and are rejected.

      Islam is different. The Koran pronounces itself the exact word of Allah as transcribed by Mohammed. Thus, the major theme to conquer the world for Islam can honestly be disputed. Nor can Sharia, G-d's law for man, which makes democracy – man's law for man – heretical.

      • Democracy First

        This, "Thus, the major theme to conquer the world for Islam can honestly be disputed." should have been, "Thus, the major theme to conquer the world for Islam CANNOT honestly be disputed."

    • yoniphile

      It's true; Leviticus says you have to stone gays to death, for example. What sets Islam apart from other religions is that the Koran is considered to be immutable and perfect, send down by the angel Gabriel. Whereas Christians and Jews interpret the Bible, the Koran must be accepted completely as is with its contradictions, requirements for stoning, and so on.

  • aspacia

    Caveat, however, only Islam calls for the subjegation, or murder of the infidels.

  • 9-11 Infidel

    A small correction. The second Great Jihad ended on Sept 12, 1683 not 1529.
    Your thesis is spot on otherwise. From the son of Hamas:

    "Hannity: We keep hearing about that there is a distinction, the difference between radical Islam and mainstream Islam

    Mosab Hassan Yousef: This is a big mistake. Comparing between moderate Muslims and fanatics. This is not how we compare it. All Muslims to me are the same. At the end of the day they believe in the god of the koran and they believe that this koran is from that god.

    Hannity: So let me ask this again. So when people talk about moderate Islam, you're saying it doesn't exist?

    Mosab Hassan Yousef: It doesn't exist."

    Geert Wilders is a rock among the quislings. Fitna was spot on.

  • happy infidel

    aspacia, yes it is written in the Bible about stoning, Jesus also said "He who is without sin, cast the first stone".

    Also aspacia, when was the last time a jew was stoned to death after being convicted of a crime in a jewish court (as distinct from a secular court)? When was the last Christian court which put a person to death? Now when was the last death sentence carried out by an islamic court?

    Only islam has remained stagnant in the middle ages, whereas the rest of humanity has progressed into the 21st century. so do not try to defend islam today on what other religeons did hundreds if not thousands of years ago, it is pittiful.

  • http://dutchconcerns.blogspot.com R. Hartman

    ALL religions are only out for power and control, 'christianity' had the inquisition, if you remember.
    But the Old Testament was replaced by the New Testament, and even in the Old Testament, while there are plenty stories of vile cruelty, the book never demands its followers to stone, hang and mutilate others, where the Koran does do this.

    Furthermore, people should stop comparing christianity and judeaism to islam, if only for the fact that the former are religions, and the latter is a political ideology, posing as a religion, and using religion-claimed intolerance to obtain privileges a non-religious claim would never succeed in getting.

    The difference between the three is exactly why the former no longer can be seen as a threat, as people who do not want to submit to religious power are (mostly) free to do so, while islam continues to demand everyone to submit, convert or perish. It's medieval evil.

    • Democracy First

      You say, "But the Old Testament was replaced by the New Testament,"

      This Jew, and millions more, disagree with you.

  • Twister

    It comes back to our Congress: if USA drills for oil, we would have plenty of jobs and Muslims would NOT have our petrodollars.
    A simple solution is in our backyard, but in the hands of arrogant buffoons.

    • lou

      That's true, but we sure could help by not driving SUVs, and commuting to work in 6000LBS truck.

      • Sassamon

        Just start drilling HERE and NOW!

  • SWB

    Read Oriana Fallaci's "The Force of Reason". It's an eyeopener.

  • USMCSniper

    Bill Kristol, Glenn Beck and Charles Krauthammer, when they differentiate between a peaceable Islam and violent Islamism are basically showing the clinging they all have to whatever organized religion they support, Christianity, Judaism, or Wicca, or whatever. Here are their instructions.

    Bat Ye'or, a recognized Islamic Scholar states, according to Islam, the political world is divided into "Houses," The first being Dar al Islam, or "House of Islam," – the Muslim nations and the second being Dar al Harb, or "House of War" – the non-Muslim nations. In effect, this second is a sort of "free fire zone" (my words) for Muslims. In between, there is often a condition known as Dar al Suhl, or "House of Truce," a status which may be achieved by a non-Muslim nation that enters into a Hudna (truce) with Dar al Islam but all lands through Jihad eventually must be Dar al Islam, or the "House of Islam.

    • Sassamon

      There is a word for that truce.
      It is akin to paying the mob
      so that you may breathe your next breath.
      Those Islamic words are the duce to spell.

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/western1 western1

    During your accumulation of that hyper-extended vocabulary of yours, did you ever come across the words "verbiage", "bloviate", "overweening" and "gasbag"?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

      Assuming that you're addressing the article's author, you fail to address the substance of what he said. Instead, you attack him on the basis of your literary sensibilities. Do you, by any chance, teach middle school grammar?

      Am I correct?

      • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/western1 western1

        LOL, you may be a pedant but at least you can see who I referred to with no trouble. Do you realize that means you agree with me? Always start your brain running before you put your mouth in gear.

  • Paul P

    America's attraction to Mr Wilders may not be so much about Christianity versus Islam, as they are about his speaking the plain truth as he sees it. Americans are drawn to Geert Wilders by his outspoken truth and honesty. Strength of charachter is sorely lacking within the American political arena and the need for a political hero has drawn us to Holland.

  • rebekah

    Where are the Gert Wilders tshirts? I need to wear one. That's the kind of hope of change i could get behind when a man speaks truth without an agenda. To abandon personal safety and wellbeing to stand for one's beliefs. We must hold up the few with the strength of character to say NO I will not submit.

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    There is no reason for devoted Moslems to immigrate into a Christian (secular or atheistic) nation other than to undermine this nation. Moreover, every nation must reassure and preserve own Borders and Culture. That means any nation must take care to repel even benign foreign cultures – not to mention particularly aggressive and vicious cultures like Islam, and whose world populace outnumbers the host nation many times.

    "The biggest terrorist is Allah of the Quran, the god of the Quran, the god of Islam", says Mosab Hassan Yousef.

    Rid of Islam within our borders, Islam does not belong here!


  • trickyblain

    All this talk. All these indictments. Now tell us, Mr. Soloway, what is your solution to this impending disaster? Are you going to tell us that we need to trump the Constitution, then write an article later this week, informing us that health care is unconstitutional?

    Here's the Islamic populations, according to the CIA, of the "threatened" countries you list. You call someone who attacks and encourages the persecution of an exceptionally small minority a "profile in courage." Alas, Wilders is a slimy fascist coward.
    -USA: 0.6%
    -Netherlands: 5.8%
    -U.K: 2.7%
    -France: 5-10%
    -Germany: 3.7%
    -Canada: 1.9 percent

    Now, let's assume that Wilders is correct in telling us among these small percentages, exists no "good" Muslims. This is of course an insane assertion, but let's go with it. Let's say they are all intent on changing our law to Sharia. Do they have the numbers? Not even close. Muslims are the new Jews. People like Wilders can’t, for obvious reason, go after Jews anymore, so he chooses a new target for political reasons. Hate never dies, it just changes targets.

    • P.J.Commandeur

      trickyblain, you do not know or understand watt is written in the Bible: Matth.13:24-30.
      Geert Wilders is only a signal, not a movement.These who already knows take this signal and see the time on the historical clock and reconstruct their behavior for the time rest.


      • trickyblain

        I'm not sure how this relates to this story praising a fascist, or my post. Are Muslims the weeds? Is Wilders the wheat? Or is Wilders the person who is pulling the weeds and wheat and someone else is the wheat? Christians? Wouldn't Wilders, an atheist, consider Muslims and Christians both weeds?

        • Democracy First

          You do the PC trick of calling fascist a man opposing Islamic facism and calling for western liberties to be protected – for Muslims and non Muslims alike.

          Fascism, as seen through Hitler's brownshirts, shut down free speech. That was the message behind Islamic riots over the bogus story of Korans flushed, Mohammed cartoons, the death fatwa against Rushdie, and the murders of Van Gogh and Fortuyn – who, not uncoincidentally was gay. And it's about why Wilders needs 24/7 guard.

          • trickyblain

            Wilders is not only trying to shut down free speech, he advocates banning Muslims from western countries based solely on religion. He is considered a fascist by people, not only on the left, but in the middle and the moderate right in his home country.

            I'm not defending any form of Islamic extremism. But this man is no hero – he betrays western democratic tradition and freedom by painting anyone who follows Islam with a broad brush.

          • Democracy First

            he does no such thing. he clearly distinguishes between Muslim and Islam.

            He does not advocate an end to muslim immigration because of individual Muslims, but because
            * their faith and their civilization are inimical to western concepts of liberty and rights. (Winston Churchill said the same.)
            * their faith adn civilziation were born with the explicitly expressed purpose of displacing our own
            * their leaders inevitably agitate to have us subsume our values in order to accomodate theirs
            * their birth rate ensures that Europe will face greater and greater pressure to surrender one law for all to one for all, except for muslims And it ensures that Europe will demograhically fall in time.
            * he's not against Islam per se; he's for western civilization.

          • trickyblain

            Yet all Muslims follow Islam, so the distinction is irrelevant. Becoming more like what they fear seems to be the panacea for the right.

            We are not Japan. The US and Canada were built on talented immigrants. The FPM crowd's vision of all Muslims is bloodthirsty members of a, to quote another poster on this thread, "medieval, devil-worshipping, child-molesting, murderous blood cult." In reality, the vast majority of Muslim immigrants to the US and Canada are professionals — engineers, doctors, scientists and teachers. And they come here with exactly the same expectations as the first English immigrants – that they will be able to worship their book god as they see fit. It is different in Europe. But for reasons you would never acknowledge because they don't lay all of the blame on a book wrtten in the desert 1400 years ago.

          • Democracy First

            I doubt that masny here see all Muslims as terrible. certainly I do not. In fact, my daughter's day home was a Muslim family. So are many of her friends. I hold a number of moderate Muslim intellectuals in the highest regard.

            But it remains the case that Islam is the faith of a 7th century war lord, trying to unite warring Arab tribes by drawing them into a singular war against everyone else. And so it preaches 7th century values and laws, e.g., polygamy, slavery (and forced sex with your slaves), child brides. And it teaches that everyone who isn't you is the enemy, in the defeat of whom anything goes, from genocide to torture. This being a martial theme, absolute submission is demanded. desertion, aka apostasy, is punishable by death.

            Such a faith will, generation after generation, draw a fair proportion of those who read it as it is, and they will be traitors within our boundaries, inherently at war with us. Not all. Perhaps not a majority. But enough, given the sanctioning of unlimited violence to create great grief.

            The only real hope is that the civilization is tamed and reformed by ours, especially democracy itself.

            A civilization built on such perspectives can only pose a danger to others. And so it has, and so its borders remain bloody.

          • Democracy First

            Is it your proposition that there's no problem? That this is all made up?

          • trickyblain

            "Is it your proposition that there's no problem? That this is all made up?'


          • Democracy First

            And all those millions of Europeans who will vote for Wilders are just plain racist fools, lacking your enlightenment?

            And they're only racist against Muslims because, after all, they have no problem with other minorities?

            And Hindus are racist? And Jews? And Coptic Christians? And iraqi Christians? ANd animists? And Combodians? And Darwish, Rushdie, Hirsi Ali et al?

            And it's just our imagination that Islam's borders are uniformly bloody in way others are not?

            BUT, not Muslims, they're not racist. Only everyone else is?

    • Democracy First

      Tricky, you're overlooking demograohics as expressed in birth rates. By 2050 the majority of births in France will be to Muslims. Moreover, it doesn't take a a majority to influence politics and society – just consider what is happening in Europe now, as, for example, Sharia is now accepted by the British judicial system for Muslims. Except, Sharia is at odds with western law in most regards.

      Moreover, in most Islamic societies it is the violent who assume power. So it is that the aggressive and Islamist tend towards positions of leadership in European Muslim communities.

      Consider this from an article in a major Beritish newspaper.: "In Brussels, the top seven baby boys' names recently were Mohamed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine and Hamza. "

      Now read the rest of the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/

      • trickyblain

        I don't doubt your stats. But, again, I ask how you would address the "problem," while remaining faithful to western values that prohibit state interference in religion and the freedom to practice whatever faith one chooses.

        • Democracy First

          1) We have no obligation to accept immigrants anymore than does Japan. And as the Japanese limit immigration, to protect their culture and identity, so we can do the same. And when we do accept immigrants, we can decide whom and how many. Are you suggesting otherwise? Are you suggesting that were our birth rates astronomical and Muslim birth rates weak, Islamic countries would bear a moral obligation to allow us in numbers so great we'd threaten to overrun them in 50 or 100 years?
          2) We have to be firm and resolute in the expectation that our laws, values and form of government will reign supreme. Period. No compromise. Immigrants, after all, choose to come or not.
          3) We have to deport any who work against us, e.g., Saudi trained imams preaching against the west in their mosques
          4) We have reattach to our values, identity and sense of self, and to the johnny come lately, antithetical multiculturalism.
          5) We should proudly acknowledge and state the superiority of teh west over all else. It is why everyone wants to come to our shores and not that of non democracies. Immigrants need to be screened to check that they believe in this too. If not, they should be barred, for they will only seek to make us what they came from – no matter that they rejected it. Previous generations of immigrants felt exactly this way, making them amenable to assimilation.

    • lucille verdad

      only 0.6% of our population and already they have stolen our free speech! what will they take when they reach 3%?
      consider the fact that yale university decided not to publish the motoons in a scholarly book about the motoon scandal. a leading university in the world's free speech superpower is afraid to print a picture!
      consider that british police now openly discriminate in favor of muslims for fear of "radicalizing" them; the native british just have to take it on the jaw in the interests of harmony.
      somali immigrants who lived in refugee camps a few years ago now demand that their american employers build them footbaths! couldn't they use plastic bottles or whatever they used in their refugee camps? why does the american consumer have to finance the religion of misogyny and hate?
      and muslim cab drivers are refusing to carry passengers with dogs or liquor bottles. what next? will unaccompanied women be forbidden service?
      there is no possible compromise between human rights and a religion that allows wife beating, honor killing, daughter selling and pedophillia. send these slavers back to their own lands.

      • Democracy First

        Good post, indicating how even a loud small minority can, in our politically correct society, earn a respectful response to disrespectful demands. We all know how authorities would react if evengelicals made such demands – separation of religion and state/university/public pools, cabs…whatever. And we know on whose side would be the ACLU.

        We also know that other minorities never make such demands. They respect the culture and traditions of the nations to which they immigrate, while maintaining their religious beliefs and cutural traits privately, if at all, rather than impose them on the public and public instituions at large.

      • trickyblain

        A cab driver leases his own cab – he or she is entitled to deny a ride to anyone for any reason if that reason is not based on discriminating against a protected class. Dog owners and people who buy liquor are not protected classes.

        An employer cannot be forced by law to build footbaths. They can do so if they choose, but there is no legal mandate.

        Nobody has stolen your free speech. Your examples actually illustrate free speech. These examples have been circulating the Internet for years, but it seems that nobody can give personal examples of being oppressed by this group that represents a fraction of a percent of our population.

        • Democracy First

          And so a dhimmi you make of yourself.

          the right answer is this: If you want to be a cab driver, you are not allowed to discriminate against passengersw based on your religious beliefs. If you can't compromise, choose another job.

          Chances are you wouldn't tolerate an evangelical refusing to carry atheists, or Muslims, or blacks, or an unaccompanied woman, or a pregnant out-of-wedlock woman….or a seeing eye dog. You defer only to Muslims, and not others. Which is worth commenting on: because other minorities do not attempt to impose their religiously based restrictions on the public at large. That's because they respect us. They understand that they cannot come here expecting us to bend to their beliefs. Islam, however, is a supremacist ideology. And thus, so many do exactly that: expect us to bend to them. It appeare you're happy to do so, under the misguided belief you're being the really nice, understandning, tolerant guy. When in fact, you're tolerating their intolerance.

          Well, Europe's finally had enough of tolerating intolerance. Good.

          • trickyblain

            –Chances are you wouldn't tolerate an evangelical refusing to carry atheists, or Muslims, or blacks, or an unaccompanied woman, or a pregnant out-of-wedlock woman….or a seeing eye dog. You defer only to Muslims, and not others. —

            Oh bullshit, CS. I'm basing it on the law. It does not matter if I "tolerate" anything. THE LAW does not tolerate "an evangelical refusing to carry atheists, or Muslims, or blacks, or an unaccompanied woman, or a pregnant out-of-wedlock woman….or a seeing eye dog." But other than protected classes, businesses are free to refuse service to anyone they choose for any reason. This includes carrying alcohol and pets (who are not there to assist a disability). That is where my deference rests – not to some silly religion.

          • Democracy First

            It's a question of what you consider to be reasonable law.

            Is it that the law is an ass when Muslim cabbies are expected to take seeing eye dogs and carrying alcohol, but the law would be reasonable if it overrides the beliefs of evangelicals?

            And, in fact, in most jurisdictions the law was that cabs take seeing eye dogs. The Muslim drivers refused to abide the law. Can we therefore conclude you believe them tio have been wrong after all?

          • Democracy First

            Moreover, this is only the tip of the issue. In Europe Muslims demand women only hours for public swimming pools. You OK with that? How do you feel about major Islamic organizations being behind the demand?

            Recently in Quebec a burka clad college student demanded that male students look away from her when she spoke in front of the class. OK with that? How do you feel about Islamic organizations supporting her?

            The demands don't stop. Each win stimulates more.

            Now why is it that only with Muslims do we have these demands made to change our laws and regulations to accomodate their religious beliefs?

            Not all Muslims, of course, support these demands. But the supremacist nature of the faith ensures it'll never stop, and will only become greater and greater as the Muslim population increases. Europe is reaching a breaking point: No, Europeans are beginning to shout, to any more demands, to violence, to Sharia, to polygamy, to calls for death to Jews and gays, No, No, No. But, of course, they're just a bunch of Islamophobes.

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/western1 western1

    Are you a muslim preaching the usual obfuscations or are you truly unaware of the huge and very aggressive effort of muslims in every Western nation to dominate those nations and force everyone to submit to Islam? You want numbers? The UK has only 2.8% muslims and yet has been terrorised through bombings and threats to allow muslims to legally practice polygamy and has passed laws allowing Sharia banking, allowing Sharia courts within muslim communities and making it a crime to insult Islam. It is well known that England is submitting to this medieval, devil-worshipping, child-molesting, murderous blood cult, which is exactly what Islam is. If you don't think so, read the Koran.

    • trickyblain

      If 2.8 percent can force the other 97.2 percent to submit to Islam, there is something very wrong with the 97.2 percent. However, the rulings of Sharia courts are unenforceable and require voluntary adherence to their decrees. They operate under the same principles as Beth Din (Jewish law) courts that have existed in the UK for over a century.

      The Koran is refelective of the tribal, desert environment in which it was dreamed up.

      • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/western1 western1

        Yep, you're a muslim. There's something wrong with the 97.2% for being terrorized. Nothing wrong with the millions of muslims there doing the terrorizing, though, that's perfectly okay. Go play with your goats.

        • trickyblain

          Sigh. No, I'm not a Muslim. I love drinking and having sex outside of marrage far too much to be a Muslim. Plus there's that whole having to pray lord knows how many times a day in the middle of the street. And then there's Ramadan, are you freaking kidding me? I just have eyes and ears and a brain that can filter crap from Web sites that tell me about Islamic global domination.

          I live in California. The closest I've come to seeing Islam imposed on me was when I went into a breakfast place in Monterey and the owner made great eats, but didn't have pork. I thought that was his right as a free enterprise here in the States, but I guess is really planning on taking away my right to choose a place that serves bacon.

      • Democracy First

        Jewish law not call for all the world to abide it, nor to be the one and only constitutions of all nations. Sharia does.

        Only orthodox Jews abide Jewish law, and even they fudge. But Muslims, if they abide Sharia, intimidate women and others of their community to abide it. That's why Muslim women in Canada enjoined feminists to get the Ontario and Quebec provincial governments from recognizing Sharia law under any circumstances.

        "However last year Justice Minister Bridget Prentice told MPs that 'if, in a family dispute …the parties to a judgment in a sharia council wish to have this recognised by English authorities, they are at liberty to draft a consent order embodying the terms of the agreement and submit it to an English court.

        'This allows judges to scrutinise it to ensure it complies with English legal tenets.'

        Decisions from sharia tribunals can be presented to a family court judge for approval with no more detail than is necessary to complete a two page

        form. The sharia courts in the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal are recognised as courts under the Arbitration Act. This law, which covers Jewish Beth Din courts, gives legal powers to a tribunal if all parties involved accept its authority."


  • Paul P

    There is definitely a concerted effort throughout the world of the Progressive movement, supported by the MSM to place anyone other than a white Christian American Male at the top of the list for politically correct praise, social acceptance and acknowledgment as someone who warrants special privelege.

  • trickyblain

    Maybe California is an "Islamist-free" zone, and I'm just lucky. What elements of Islamist domination have you had to deal with today?

    Nice that you label every Muslim in Britain a terrorist. That's realistic and shows a very level-headed approach. And, yes, if 97.2 percent of the people are terrorized by 2.8 percent, the 97.2 percent are pansies. But they are not "being terrorized" by "millons of muslims" and so they really aren't pansies.

    The panises are the ones living in fear of being forced to submit to Islam. Those who read, and echo, Web sites like this.

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/western1 western1

      Are you sure about that "brain" part? Ah, you must have it placed in safe storage somewhere, eh?. Stay in California and keep swilling booze and whatever else you do to make you so well read and erudite, it's working. Your responses are truly brilliant. Really. Hey, just be happy, and know that your own opinion is superior to all those darned troublesome facts and God forbid you should need to stick your head out and look at the rest of the world. Reality is so overrated, don't you think? Bye bye.

      • trickyblain

        My opinion? No, I am citing actual numbers (in response to your impossible claim that there are millions of terrorists in the UK). You actually claimed to numbers as your foundation, a few posts back. But then you made poo-poh and got personal. Retard. Bye.

  • http://pillaroftruth.com.au Adelaide

    aspacia –Because you are confounding Religion, and the Christian Religion with true Christianity you are partially right. The traditional influence and hearsay has influenced most of us. If your view of the Bible is correct why would the Lord complain in Hosea 6:6 “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Or to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:23 “and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done.” If people would take note of what the Bible actually teaches they would soon realize the difference between law, mercy and grace.

  • Sassamon

    Geert Wilders is a hero. There I've said it again.
    A post on Pamela's website the other day said,
    "We are all Geert Wilders!"

    Beck's reasoning fails me on this one.
    I hold no connection to the Muslims and honor all connections to Israel.

    • Sassamon

      Just unsubscribed to Beck's newsletter.
      He needs to wash his brain out.
      Let me know when he has done so.

  • Historicdan

    Islam is merely the 8th century version of totalitarianism. Then a moon god supplied the authority to control and oppress people for the power needs of a man, Mohamet. In the Twentieth Century, the Volk, the state or "The Party" served the same function.

  • 080

    In the history of humanity fanatics have always trumped moderates unless confronted with overwhilming force. If you don't believe this just follow the news from Europe.

  • Democracy First

    I did not mean: "We have reattach to our values, identity and sense of self, and to the johnny come lately, antithetical multiculturalism. "

    But this, "We have reattach to our values, identity and sense of self, and NOT to the johnny come lately, antithetical multiculturalism. "

  • Democracy First

    Wilders speech to British Parliament, part 1

    Speech House of Lords, London, Friday the 5th of March 2010

    Thank you. It is great to be back in London. And it is great that this time, I got to see more of this wonderful city than just the detention centre at Heathrow Airport.

    Today I stand before you, in this extraordinary place. Indeed, this is a sacred place. This is, as Malcolm always says, the mother of all Parliaments, I am deeply humbled to have the opportunity to speak before you.

    Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for your invitation and showing my film Fitna. Thank you my friends for inviting me.

    I first have great news. Last Wednesday city council elections were held in the Netherlands. And for the first time my party, the Freedom Party, took part in these local elections. We participated in two cities. In Almere, one of the largest Dutch cities. And in The Hague, the third largest city; home of the government, the parliament and the queen. And, we did great! In one fell swoop my party became the largest party in Almere and the second largest party in The Hague. Great news for the Freedom Party and even better news for the people of these two beautiful cities.

    • Democracy First

      Wilders speech, part 2

      And I have more good news. Two weeks ago the Dutch government collapsed. In June we will have parliamentary elections. And the future for the Freedom Party looks great. According to some polls we will become the largest party in the Netherlands. I want to be modest, but who knows, I might even be Prime Minister in a few months time!

      Ladies and gentlemen, not far from here stands a statue of the greatest Prime Minister your country ever had. And I would like to quote him here today: “Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step (…) the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” These words are from none other than Winston Churchill wrote this in his book ‘The River War’ from 1899.

      Churchill was right.

      Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

  • Democracy First

    Wilder speech, part 3

    Islam strives for world domination. The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad. The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law. The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.

    As former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”. End of quote.

    Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent”. End of quote. Indeed, for once in his life, Gaddafi was telling the truth. Because, remember: mass immigration and demographics is destiny!

    Islam is merely not a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology. Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave. Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society. >From civic- and family law to criminal law. It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet. Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.

  • Democracy First

    Wilders speech, part 5

    We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible pace. Europe is Islamizing rapidly. A lot of European cities have enormous Islamic concentrations. Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin are just a few examples. In some parts of these cities, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being destroyed. Burqa’s, headscarves, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. Women have to go to separate swimming-classes, don’t get a handshake. In many European cities there is already apartheid. Jews, in an increasing number, are leaving Europe.

    As you undoubtedly all know, better then I do, also in your country the mass immigration and islamization has rapidly increased. This has put an enormous pressure on your British society. Look what is happening in for example Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and here in London. British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill have now taken the path of least resistance. They have given up. They have given in.

    Last year, my party has requested the Dutch government to make a cost-benefit analysis of the mass immigration. But the government refused to give us an answer. Why? Because it is afraid of the truth. The signs are not good. A Dutch weekly magazine – Elsevier – calculated costs to exceed 200 billion Euros. Last year alone, they came with an amount of 13 billion Euros. More calculations have been made in Europe: According to the Danish national bank, every Danish immigrant from an Islamic country is costing the Danish state more than 300 thousand Euros. You see the same in Norway and France. The conclusion that can be drawn from this: Europe is getting more impoverished by the day. More impoverished thanks to mass immigration. More impoverished thanks to demographics. And the leftists are thrilled.

  • Democracy First

    Wilders speech, part 7

    Unfortunately, so far they have not done so well. For they do not want to hear the truth about Islam, nor are they interested to hear the opinion of top class legal experts in the field of freedom of expression. Last month in a preliminary session the Court refused fifteen of the eighteen expert-witnesses I had requested to be summoned.

    Only three expert witnesses are allowed to be heard. Fortunately, my dear friend and heroic American psychiatrist dr. Wafa Sultan is one of them. But their testimony will be heard behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must not be told in public, the truth about Islam must remain secret.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I’m being prosecuted for my political beliefs. We know political prosecution to exist in countries in the Middle East, like Iran and Saudi-Arabia, but never in Europe, never in the Netherlands.

    I’m being prosecuted for comparing the Quran to ‘Mein Kampf’. Ridiculous. I wonder if Britain will ever put the beliefs of Winston Churchill on trial… Ladies and gentlemen, the political trial that is held against me has to stop.

    But it is not all about me, not about Geert Wilders. Free speech is under attack. Let me give you a few other examples. As you perhaps know, one of my heroes, the Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her anti-Islam book ‘The Rage and the Pride’. The Dutch cartoonist Nekschot was arrested in his home in Amsterdam by 10 police men because of his anti-Islam drawings. Here in Britain, the American author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued by a Saudi businessman for defamation. In the Netherlands Ayaan Hirsi Ali and in Australia two Christian pastors were sued. I could go on and on. Ladies and gentlemen, all throughout the West freedom loving people are facing this ongoing ‘legal jihad’. This is Islamic ‘lawfare’. And, ladies and gentlemen, not long ago the Danish cartoonist Westergaard was almost assassinated for his cartoons.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we should defend the right to freedom of speech. With all our strength. With all our might. Free speech is the most important of our many liberties. Free speech is the cornerstone of our modern societies. Freedom of speech is the breath of our democracy, without freedom of speech our way of life our freedom will be gone.

  • Democracy First

    Wilders speech, part 9

    What will be broadcasted forty years from now? Will it still be “This is London”? Or will it be “This is Londonistan”? Will it bring us hope? Or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery? The choice is yours. And in the Netherlands the choice is ours.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we will never apologize for being free. We will and should never give in. And, indeed, as one of your former leaders said: We will never surrender.

    Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

    Thank you very much.

  • Democracy First

    Wilders speech, part 4

    I believe that Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to Western values. The equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization. Ladies and gentlemen: Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible. It are opposite values.

    No wonder that Winston Churchill called Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ “the new Quran of faith and war, turgid, verbose, shapeless, bur pregnant with its message”. As you know, Churchill made this comparison, between the Koran and Mein Kampf, in his book ‘The Second World War’, a master piece, for which, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Churchill’s comparison of the Quran and ‘Mein Kampf’ is absolutely spot on. The core of the Quran is the call to jihad. Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle. Kampf is German for battle. Jihad and kampf mean exactly the same.

    Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That’s a given. The question is whether we in Europe and you in Britain, with your glorious past, will submit or stand firm for your heritage.

  • Democracy First

    Wilders speech, part 6

    I don’t know whether it is true, but in several British newspapers I read that Labour opened the door to mass immigration in a deliberate policy to change the social structures of the UK. Andrew Neather, a former government advisor and speech writer for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, said the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy was, and I quote, to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”. If this is true, this is symptomatic of the Left.

    Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The left is facilitating islamization. Leftists, liberals, are cheering for every new shariah bank being created, for every new shariah mortgage, for every new islamic school, for every new shariah court. Leftists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

    Why I ask myself, why have the Leftists and liberals stopped to fight for them? Once the Leftists stood on the barricades for women’s rights. But where are they today? Where are they in 2010? They are looking the other way. Because they are addicted to cultural relativism and dependent on the Muslim vote. They are dependent on mass-immigration.

    Thank heavens Jacqui Smith isn’t in office anymore. It was a victory for free speech that a UK judge brushed aside her decision to refuse me entry to your country last year. I hope that the judges in my home country are at least as wise and will acquit me of all charges, later this year in the Netherlands.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/LanternMan LanternMan

    "Aspacia" states that what Solway says about Islam could equally well be said about the other two Abrahamic Religions.
    Not so.
    When those portions of the Holy Books of those two Religions describe combat, it is confined to that time and that place. It is not prescribed as acceptable and certainly not mandatory behaviour expected of their Faithful, ever, let alone for all time.

    The Koran, on the other hand, clearly assigns its adherents the following tasks: (Surah 9:5) ”Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive) and besiege them, and prepare for them every ambush." (the term "Idolaters" is meant to indicate “Christians”)

    This assignment is clear, and clearly understood to be as valid and binding today as it was 1400 years ago by (what we call) militant Muslims. Proof of this is found in the statements of many aprehended Islamic murderers, who have cited this verse (in their attempted defense) as giving them the right to kill those whom they have destroyed.

    This is certainly not the only such exhortation for the Fathful Muslim to kill any other human who (they judge) is not a faithful Muslim. In fact, I think it is fair to say that such messages serve as a leit motif running throughout this collection of sermons.

    And this is not some carelessly-translated version of the Koran, it is one of the most respected and frequently mentioned by Islamic writers.

    So it is time that you, "Aspacia" and all others who may read this, who until now, believed the myth that "Islam is a peaceful religion" to face the awful truth that when taken literally and enthusiastically, this is a set of instructions that continues to pose a serious threat to ALL non-Muslims, all over our World.

    It is time for all of us who celebrate freedom to recognize that what Mr Wilders and a growing number of others have been trying to tell us is, sadly, all too true. We need to join these brave people in resisting the advances of the current tsunami of Islamic Fascism, before it sweeps away all that we hold to be precious.

    Either that, or learn to speak Arabic.

    The Light is lit.

    The only remaining question is, "Who will now stand up in defense of Freedom?"

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/LanternMan LanternMan

    David Solway writes that he cannot see the possibility of a Moderate Muslim.

    I'd like to remind him that throughout its bloody millenium and a half of growth, Islam has practiced forced conversion. As I understand it, the choices proceed accoring to the following algorythm:
    1. Ask the victim to Accept Islam; if "No" then
    2. Offer the status of lower-class person (Dhimmi), if "No" then
    3. Ask victim to bend over and bare his neck.

    There are other versions of this practice, for example, in a country facing real starvation, the choice has been "If you want food, you must accept Islam".

    So, can you not see the possibility that there are many people out there in the Islamic world who, in order to keep on living, have learned to act like faithful Muslims but who (inwardly) pray for liberty, and an end to the pretense and fear fo discovery?

    This is not far-fetched. In recent years, we have seen many people, who for several generations have lived lives as Christians, emerge as secretly treasuring, and in some cases actually practicing their inherited Judaism.

    It seems likely to me that a corrollary of this history is entirely possible within Islam.

    In this, I find reason to hope…for the continuation of our way of life, as well as for the liberation of all of those who yearn to be released from their physical and spiritual bondage.

  • jaatleisure

    Mr. Solway:
    In the end, it does not matter whether Mr. Wilders thinks there is such a thing
    as "moderate Islam", or not. It does not matter whether you think it exists, or not.
    The only thing that matters is whether MUSLIMS think it exists, not.
    It is their religion. It is THEY that practice it, no one else.
    Every Muslim authority, and every leader of a Muslim country insists
    "there is no moderate Islam or strict Islam, there is only Islam."
    (Any Muslim leader who said otherwise, would probably not live very
    long). That is what Muslims believe. The Islam they follow–the one,
    the only, the not-subject-to-interpretation-Islam, THAT ISLAM, calls for
    Muslims, and the word of Mohammed to dominate the world, by force if
    Of course, many Muslims are not devout in their religion; they don't practice
    it "religiously". They're happy enough to just live their lives, get along, raise their
    kids, and not be political, certainly not violent. Even as they insist that they agree
    with all the imperatives in the Koran. It is evident that Muslims who who DO take
    their religion very seriously, take the Koran at its word, and intend to impose it on
    the rest of us, or die trying. A conflict between Western Civ and Islam is the necessarily logical result. Either Islam changes (it hasn't, in 1400 years), OR, the West submits to
    Islam, OR there is eternal struggle. Those are the only possibilities.
    Wilders is serving a noble purpose. He is an extraordinarily brave man. My only
    quibble with him is that he wants to ban the Koran. In his own context–in Holland,
    where there is no 1st amendment–and Mein Kampf IS banned, this is logically consistent.
    He also calls for the Netherlands to GET an American-style first amendment, in which
    case, I assume neither Mein Kampf nor the Koran are banned. But that's an issue for later. The issue in front of us NOW, is the struggle Islam wages against the entire non-Islamic world, what we do about it, and how much damage is done to the world in the meantime.
    4. It only

  • Daniel

    I enjoyed reading this article, and since open letters are not usually answered, maybe I (as a fellow countryman of Geert Wilders) can address a few points that Mr. Solway raised here.

    First, the issue of Mr. Wilders drawing a distinction between muslims and their faith. I do not think that Mr. Solway's explanation -that Wilders is doing this so as not to alienate muslims- is correct. Wilders' PVV party draws very few muslim votes and does not make a serious effort to reach out to them either. I think the generally accepted explanations for this distinction, in Holland, are two-fold.
    First of all, although we certainly do enjoy free speech (and have since pre-American times) we do have hate speech laws, mainly as a consequence of the horrors of WW2, when hateful propaganda against the jews facilitated their gruesome persecution. If Wilders were to make blanket negative statements about muslims, rather than their faith, he could get into serious legal trouble because that could be seen as spreading hatred towards an ethnic group (well, he is in such trouble already for precisely that reason!).

    • Daniel


      What's perhaps more, he would also alienate the majority of his voters, who like other Dutch people are quite sensitive to the issue of discrimination.
      And secondly, it's simply a reasonable approach, one that Wilders himself likely believes in too, and one that maintains a modicum of hope. Christianity once was just as backward, cruel, intolerant and dominant as Islam often shows itself to be today. The age of enlightenment put an end to that, and in Holland at least, Christians now agree that their articles of faith are primarily a private matter, do not apply to others, and that their laws 'from above' are not superior to the rule of man (i.e. our democratic laws and constitution). Islam has never gone through such a transition, but hopefully, most of its followers in the west eventually will, once they come to understand and appreciate the benefits that freedom of speech, religion, etc., offer to believers of all kinds.

      • Daniel


        As for the other point, Wilders' possible election victory and the prospect of him becoming our prime minister. Chances of that are really slim. Not just because the opposing Labour party has just gained strongly in the polls after they appointed a new leader, but mainly for two other reasons. The first is that for a Min.-President to be effective, he needs a majority in both houses of parliament.
        The PVV does not have any representation in the first house (they didn't participate – long story), and to gain a majority in the second -but more significant- house, he'd have to form a coalition with at least two other major parties, and none of the other large (and more established, elitist) parties are eager to cooperate with Wilders, let alone accept him as the leader of their government.

        Still, even if the PVV remains relegated to the opposition benches, they're likely to become a significant voice in Dutch politics.

  • http://www.topwatchshop.org/ Bvlgari watches sale

    Bvlgari watches sale are so authentic, luxurious, chic, and genuine looking. This is admired by most people in the world. There are many reasons of Cartier watches sale success. Breitling has achieved much success since its foundation. If you want to buy a ReplicaDior watches sale, it is necessary for you to know the history of Breitling watches.Breitling was founded by Leon Breitling in 1884 in St Imier with the specific purpose to advance chronographs and counters for accurate and automated applications. In 1892, to face up to the unstoppable advance of his company, Leon Breitling decides to backpack his workshops to La-Chaux-de-Fonds, city of the Emporio Armani watches sale industry in those days. Louis Breitling dies en 1914 and leaves his son Gaston Breitling in charge. One year later, Breitling creates the aboriginal wristwatch chronograph. Later, he continues to accomplish several cogent developments in this breadth and bartering the aboriginal wristwatch instruments to aviators Franck Muller watches sale.