The Qur'an - Articles - Zimbio

Interview with Geert Wilders

Thu, 10 Oct 2008 19:58:00 GMT

posted by Warband

Dale Hurd: What was the purpose of the film "Fitna?"

Geert Wilders: Our country, the Netherlands as many other countries is based on Christianity, is based on Judaism, is even based on humanism. But not on islam. And this is what I wanted to show people, not by using actors, but by using real images and real verses from the Koran, that the Koran is not just and old book from 1500 years ago.It's a book that is still very alive today. And people get a lot of wrong incentives from it today.

So I wanted to warn the people and I was quite successful, whatever you may think about "Fitna." In the Netherlands more than 3 million people watched it after 24 hours. And worldwide more than 20 million people watched it after two weeks.

Hurd: I'm sure people who have watched you provoke Islam over the years wonder if you have a death wish. Are you secretly daring Muslims to try to kill you?

Wilders: No and I'm not even provoking them as you said. I try to warn the people in the Netherlands and maybe even abroad and Western societies about the actual danger that Islam brings to our society and to our freedom.

Hurd: Do you believe that a moderate of democratic Islam can exist?

Wilders: No. I don't believe in it. I don't think there is a European Islam. There is no moderate Islam. Islam is, as I see it, a fascist ideology, full of hatred, submission and anything else that we should fight against. However, I make a distinction between the ideology, I believe islam is more an ideology than a religion and the people. There are of course, people, Muslims.I have nothing against Muslims who are not terrorists, who are.the majority of the Muslims in my country are law abiding people; are not terrorists at all.

Hurd: I've heard you call Islamic culture "retarded."

Wilders: It is a culture of backwardness, of retardedness, of barbarism.

Hurd: You've been called a racist. Do you believe in the superiority of whites?

Wilders: No, of course not. I am not a racist. I'm not even in contact with countries, with parties like the British National Party who believe in black and white. I am a Democrat, full stop.

Hurd: In your speech to parliament a few days ago, you referred to Muslim "colonists." What did you mean?

Wilders: Well, people that are coming to the Netherlands to stir up problems or who are in the Netherlands, they are not here to integrate. But to dominate. They don't give a d---, excuse my words, for all he criticism and all the culture that we have in the Netherlands today.

That's why I call them colonists. We have immigrants from Morocco who have been living here for 30 years who don't speak a word of Dutch.

Hurd: So you see Islam growing, you see a government you don't believe cares enough. So where is the Netherlands headed on this issue?

Wilders: The biggest problem we face today is the dominant political culture is one of cultural relativism. Most of the political elite really do believe in cultural relativism - really do believe that all cultures are equal. Wereas I believe they are not equal.

I believe the Christian and the Jewish culture is far better. And I'm not ashamed to say it. I'm not a racist to say that the Christian culture is better than the Islamic culture. There is an enormous gap between the political elite and the vox populi.

The people see that our country is changing. They see in their streets, in their neighborhoods, in their cities, in their villages; they see that it's often not the Netherlands anymore. They feel they live in "Little Morocco" or "Little Turkey."

We have an Islamic intifada today. I'm not exaggerating. In many, many cities in the netherlands. This is a problem. And the government looks the other directiuon and ignores it and puts it under the carpet, all the problems.

Hurd: Are you tired of living with a death threat over your head?

Wilders: Well, not tired, but sometimes - not sometimes - I wish I didn't have it. And I am not exaggerating if I say I lost my freedom. I lived in prison cells for half a year and army barracks and moved two places.

My life changed a lot and I can manage, and people don't have to have sympathy for me because I feel I have a mission. My mission is very strong, and I really believe in it. And I know that if we really don't get a sense of urgency and act and defend our culture, defend our freedom, that it's too late.

Source

Tags: Geert Wilders, FitnaThis is from Green Arrow

Netherlands of the future

Wed, 3 Apr 2008 03:43:21 GMT

posted by moinansari

Dutch politician’s diatribe about Islamic extremism is troubling, BRIDGET JOHNSON
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

Geert Wilders won’t win an Academy Award for Best Documentary Short anytime soon.

The far-right Dutch politician with the trademark blond mane has delighted in being the shock-jock of Parliament, and spends his days in police protection for a litany of anti-Islam comments. But while Wilders’ short film “Fitna,” released online last week with equal parts fanfare and trepidation, makes some salient points about the impact of Islamic radicalism, the message falls flat because of, well, the messenger.

Wilders, after all, prefers no Islam instead of championing moderate Muslims in Europe. He compares the Quran to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” And his film bounces back to the same premise: The Netherlands has too many Muslims.

The terror that killed filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, though, goes a lot deeper than demographic figures.

With a script credited to “Geert Wilders & Scarlet Pimpernel,” “Fitna” begins with the cartoon of Mohammed with the bomb in his turban that sparked deadly riots in 2006. The bomb is lit, sizzling across a blank page of a book that later stands in for the Quran.

Kurt Westergaard, who drew that cartoon for Danish publication Jyllands-Posten and was recently the target of a murder plot, said Wilders’ usage was “theft” and “an abuse of my cartoon.” Nowhere does “Fitna” touch on the real story behind that cartoon, either, which is one of the most troubling parts about the vicious reaction to the Jyllands-Posten spread: Westergaard drew the cartoon to show how terrorists misuse Islam.

“It was a cartoon aiming at fanatic Islamist terrorists — a small part of Islam,” Westergaard, in hiding himself and now suing Wilders, told Der Spiegel. “The cartoon must not be used against Muslim society as a whole.”

The film continues by showing images from the 9/11 attacks, then the gory 3/11 train bombings in Madrid and the London bus and train bombings, interspersed with Quran passages and quotes from firebrand clerics. It shows van Gogh, who created the short film “Submission” decrying the treatment of women in Islam, dismissing the notion that he’s a target.

The first two-thirds of the movie — save for Mohammed with the lit fuse — looks like a number of other documentaries made about militant Islam, and one wonders when Geert is going to, well, be himself. Then the film moves into a segment titled “The Netherlands Under the Spell of Islam.” Up go charts showing the spiking population of Muslims in the Netherlands over the years, superimposed over footage of women in the niqab or hijab pushing strollers.

With the title “The Netherlands in the future?!” the film shows images of gays being hanged in Iran, women being executed, female genital mutilation, etc.

We see a hand on a page of the Quran, then the screen goes black with a ripping sound and the words, “The sound you heard was a page being removed from the phonebook. For it is not up to me, but for Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Quran. … Islam wants to rule, submit and seeks to destroy our Western civilization.”

You can guess what then happens to the Mohammed cartoon’s turban bomb.

No violence in response to “Fitna” would be justified. Free speech is a cornerstone of our democratic societies, and is also a basic human right. Wilders’ festival of copyright infringement pushes this principle for all it’s worth.

A headline Friday in the Daily Mail read, “Dutch MP Geert Wilders claims to be all about freedom of expression — but is he about to engulf Britain in a holy war?” But Britain has problems with Islamic extremism with or without a U.K. video-hosting service showing Wilders’ film.

The truth is, a true picture of the dangers of militant Islam can be gleaned without a drop of commentary from attention-hungry politicians. Start with the Hamas children’s shows that advocate martyrdom, such as “Tomorrow’s Pioneers” where big bunny Assud, the latest stuffed-animal terrorist, tells kids he’ll “eat” Jews.

Allow unfettered access and English translations to the militant Web sites on which so many nefarious intentions are openly discussed. Watch al-Qaida and the Taliban fight for a foothold in Pakistan, killing Westerners and fellow Muslims alike. Listen to van Gogh’s killer, Mohammed Bouyeri, say to van Gogh’s mother, “I can’t feel for you because I think you’re a nonbeliever.”

As it stands, getting the solution to these crises from Wilders is like asking Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Pat Buchanan to draft comprehensive immigration reform.

Bridget Johnson is a columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. Write her at bridget.Johnson@dailynews.com.

Send Tulips & Roses to Anti-Quran Film maker Geert Wilders: Global campaign to Defy bigotry with flower power! Tulips have a special place for Muslims and the Dutch

Thu, 14 Mar 2008 23:40:00 GMT

posted by moinansari

Mr. Geert Wilders is about to release an anti-Quran video. There is bigotry in Holland, and Islamphobia it is growing in Europe. We all know that. The question is how do Muslims deal with it. The film of the Quran is about to be released in a matter of days. Burning buses in Islamabad, or flags in Gaza will have not impact on the Dutch or Geert Wilders. It will only increase the bigotry dividend to him and his political allies in the Netherlands.

We need to learn from what the prophet Muhammad would have done. A woman used to throw garbage on him every day from a roof-top. One day she wasn’t there. The prophet went to ask about her health and provided her medical help. She converted to Islam.

We suggest that Muslims all over the world send flowers to Geert Wilders. We envision thousands of bouquets of roses (Gul e Muhammadi) and Tulips (which spell ”Allah”) to Mr. Geert Widlers. A bigto like Mr. Wilders would find it hard to see “Allah” all around him. This would be his worst nightmare.

Our vision is thousands of flowers to Mr. Wilders and to the Danish cartoonists also. This will surely not melt their hearts. But it will send a classy message to the Dutch people

Dave’s Flower Shop - Maalderij 31, Amstelveen - +31 75 6284235

Flower-Shop Trading BV -Middel Broekweg 29, Honselersdijk - +31 166 697316

Here is a Google search for flower shops in Amsterdam

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS266&q=flower+shop+amsterdam

Mr. Geert Wilders, Member Parliament

Parliament of the Netherlands, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Muslims should also boycott all Danish and Dutch goods so that there is an economic impact of provoking Muslims.

SIOE (Stop Islamization of Europe) sees Islamic influences all around them in Europe.We agree with them.

Europe is awash in Islamic symbols and influences.

The SOIE & Frank Vanhecke can take steps to eradicate these immediately. Part of Mr. Eert’s agenda is to ban the Quran, limit and reverse Muslim immigration to the Netherlands.

Perhaps as a precursor to banning the Quran and reducing Muslim immigration, Filip Dewinter, Anders Gravers, Stephen Garsh, Geert Wilders, Frank Vanhecke, & Filip Dewinter should begin eliminating existing Muslim influences in the Netherlands.

1) Let us start with Tulips. Tulips (from the original Turkish “Topi Lale”) are of Islamic Turkish origins and a tulip flower represents the Arabic word “Allah” in Arabic. See “Tulipomania”. Frank Vanhecke & Geert Wilders should eliminate all tulips from the Netherlands.

The Turks the Tulip flower because the flower spells “Allah” in Arabic. I feel sorry for Geert. Each time he sees a tulip he gets infuriated because it displays “Allah” in Arabic.

To Arabs the Rose is called Gul e Muhammaddi” (”flower of Muhammad”) and the Arabic word Muhammad is seen in the rose. The SIOE, Frank Vanhecke, Filip Dewinter, Greet and others should ban roses from Belgium, Netherlands and Europe also.

2) Sugar (from the Arabic “sukkar”) was brought back by the Crusades from Muslim Jerusalem. SIOE, Frank Vanhecke, Stephen Garsh, & Geert Wilders and others should ban all sugar from the Netherlands, Belgium and Europe.

3) Windmills were developed as a result of Muslim technology developed in Muslim Spain, Ottomans and the Arabs. Frank Vanhecke & Geert Wilders should immediately ban all windmills in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Europe.

4) Stitched cloth was an Arab invention in Spain. Frank Vanhecke & Geert Wilders should immediately ban stitched cloth in Belgium, Netherlands and Europe.

5) The English word “collegiate” is of Arabic origins from the Arabic “kulliat”. Oxford was formed by returning Crusader monks from Egypt that had seen the Middle Easter university called “Al-Azhar”. Frank Vanhecke. Stephen Garsh and Geert Wilders should eliminate this Islamic influence in the Europe and ban all colleges in the Belgium, Netherlands and Europe.

6) Since Beethoven and Baach were also influenced by Turkish and Muslim music (during the siege of Vienna and the interaction with the Ottomans), perhaps the SIOE should ban music from the greatest musicians of our time and eliminate “symbols” and drums from all music because they were originally invented by Muslims. I would love to see Mr. Wilders facial expressions when he hears Beethoven’s 9th symphony “A la Turka”. Flamenco dancing is also of Turkish origin, so the SIOE should ban it in the Netherlands, Belgium and Europe.

7) The SIOE, Frank Vanhecke & Stephen Garsh should also ban Arabic words and symbols in the Netherlands, Belgium & Europe. He should begin with banning the ” ‘Arabic’ numerals” (the numbering system used by the world) and revert back to the Roman numeral system. He should also ban Chemistry (Al Chemia), Algebra (Al Gebran) and all words beginning with “Al” including Alchohol.

Most importantly the SIOE, Frank Vanhecke and Stephen Garsh should ban hookas and hashish most of which comes from Muslim countires.

9) The list is long, Croissants, Marsipan, the Dome structures of building, Gothic architecture, trial by jury, paper, printing, gunpowder, the compass all have Islamic origins.

10) Frank Vanhecke, Stephen Garsh & Geert Wilders should eliminate all these from the Netherlands, Belgium and Europe.

Danish Rose to Dutch Wilders: Movie “simplistic”, “not very well done”

Fri, 29 Mar 2008 22:18:30 GMT

posted by moinansari

Danish Nazi to Dutch Nazi

The Danish cartoonist Mr. Kurt Westergaard has protested to Wilders about using his cartoon without permission.

The Danish Mr. Westergaard also reportedly said that the usage of the cartoon in the new context was not OK!

The publisher of the cartoons Mr. Fleming Rose has criticized Mr. Wilders movie which is calls “simplistic” and “not very well done.”

Mr. Rose points out that the move does not mention the millions of hard working Muslims living in Europe.

Journalist and author Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish newspaper

“Jyllands-Posten,” became famous internationally in 2006 for having commissioned and published satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

The controversy that ensued provoked violence in some countries and led to global debate on Islam and free speech. RFE/RL correspondent Jeremy Bransten interviewed Rose about the recent reprinting of the drawings as well as his reaction to the just-released movie by radical Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

RFE/RL: I gather you’ve seen Geert Wilders’ movie. Wilders said he made a “very decent film” that was “within the boundaries of the law.”

He added that the film was a call for debate. What did you think?

Rose: I think this is like an op-ed in the newspaper. I think it’s a pretty simplistic movie. It’s not very well done. I would compare it to what Michael Moore did in “Fahrenheit 9/11.” It’s a propaganda movie, it’s simplistic. And what’s interesting here is not so much the movie itself, because there’s nothing new in there. What is really interesting are the reactions we are receiving, both within the Muslim world, within the Muslim community in Europe and within European governments. This is what we have to debate.

The film in itself holds nothing new. And I have to stress that Wilders does not even appear in the movie. This movie is made up of documentary pictures linked together by quotes from the Koran. And what Wilders wants to say is that the violence — in 9/11, 7/7 in London, in Madrid, the killing of [Dutch filmmaker] Theo van Gogh and others acts — was committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. And he referred to the quotes in the Koran that — according to the people who committed these acts, justified their actions. So, Wilders didn’t make up things. I just think he didn’t strike the right balance.

Absent in this movie were all the moderate Muslims that also live in Europe and are trying to build a normal life, as everybody else. They were not part of this movie. But you know, I read letters to the editor and op-eds in the newspaper every day that are lacking this kind of balance. And they do not receive the same kind of attention and reactions.

Chasing Windmills and eliminating Islamic influences from Europe: Rebuttal “supporting” Geert Wilders–

Koranic verses on the duty to kill

Sat, 13 Jul 2008 11:42:00 GMT

posted by Cole2
We've learned a lot since Antony Thomas's drama-documentary Death of a Princess set Saudi Arabian blood boiling in 1980, but the director's latest television film The Qur'an (for Channel 4) will certainly cause anger among many Muslims when it is screened on Monday.

Only a fool supposes that what you see on television is what you get. The scene that amused me was shot at the lovely, ancient convent of Saydnaya in Syria. Over a background of chanting, the narrator says in a hushed tone:

"Anyone familiar with the Koran will recognise words and phrases in the sung liturgy." It was just the film-makers' luck at that moment that the chant was "Kyrie eleison" - not Arabic or Syriac, but a litany in Greek familiar to a billion Catholics from its regular use at Mass.

The film The Qur'an asks a serious question, though, which is: if Muslims believe that the Koran is the timeless and unchanging word of God, how come Muslims behave in such diverse ways?

We see Sufi men and women sitting together for prayer, others whirling in dance; Shia formally beating themselves and seeking the intercessory prayers of the eighth Imam, Ali Reza; a German scholar calling for a "new interpretation and reading of the Koran"; a poor little girl being genitally mutilated; Israelis being blown up. There's something here to offend everyone.

After an hour or so, the viewer might wonder whether the film's title should have been Muslims rather than The Qur'an. Yet the role of the Koran may be a matter of life and death to non-Muslim Westerners.

An alert viewer will hear the Cambridge academic Timothy Winter referring to the Koran as "the uncreated word of God". But the non-stop images of the television screen tend to distract attention from an important pointer like this.

The fact is that Muslims settled the question of whether the Koran was created or not in the 9th century AD. In Baghdad, the pious Ibn Hanbal held out against the Caliph and against a temporarily triumphant group of speculative scholars who insisted that the Koran was created.

After a period of persecution, the teaching of Ibn Hanbal was confirmed: the Koran is indeed the uncreated word of God. Ibn Hanbal became the founder of a school of Islamic law that informs the attitude of the Wahhabi authorities in Saudi Arabia today.

The Qur'an makes much of the difficulty for Western liberals of verses in the Koran on the treatment of women. Since the film was made, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, has said that he does not think it "very radical to advocate embracing sharia, in the context of family disputes, for example".

I wonder how, in the context of a dispute between husband and wife, he'd view - as an immmovable element in sharia - verse 4:34 of the Koran: "Admonish those women whose rebelliousness you fear, shun them in their resting-places and hit them. If they obey you, do not seek a further way against them." Seems straightforward.

In any case, whatever one's personal understanding of the Arabic text of the Koran, the reality is that obligations on Muslims are decided by religious judges steeped in the hadith (the traditions about Mohammed's teaching and practice) and in legal commentaries.

I think this is where the television programme goes most astray. It argues that Iranian Shia "have one thing in common with the Saudis" and that is "a priestly caste, contrary to the spirit of the Koran".

Goodness knows where this notion comes from. There are no priests in Islam. Even if "clerics" are meant, the argument is upside down. It suggests that individual, unmediated interpretation of the Koran is good and clerical teaching about the Koran is bad.

This doesn't fit Islamic practice. Islam has no central authority but it has the ulama, the scholars of Koranic law. It would be a foolish Muslim who contradicted their judgments.

Yet trouble, from the point of view of the West, comes precisely when violent sectarian Islamists set themselves up without expertise as interpreters of Koranic verses. This one (9:5), has proved particularly dangerous: "Kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush."

To Islamist extremists, Christians, because they associate creatures (such as Jesus) with God, count as polytheists.

Source: Telegraph