Written and collected by Zia H Shah

Wilders wants to divide the world into non-Muslim against Muslim

Wilders has been on record saying,  “I don’t hate Muslims, I hate Islam.”[1] So, by his own admission he is an Islamophobe.  How worthwhile is the scholarship of one who writes out of hate and spite?  However, as he has gained some influence in Dutch politics, I decided to read and refute his recent book.

After centuries of struggle, humanity overcame the scourge of racism, with the help of all the struggles for human rights during the 20th century, especially the civil rights movement in USA and the fall of the apartheid in South Africa.  As humanity is gratefully consolidating its victory over human divisions based on color, Geert Wilders wants to divide humanity across religion lines.  He wants to introduce a new form of racism, against Muslims, which wants to condemn everything that is directly or indirectly related to Islam.  In his recent book, Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me, he has collected everything negative about the Muslims and the way some of them practice Islam and completely  ignored positive, today and historically.  In so doing, he has created a polemic aimed at dividing humanity across the religious lines and affiliations, disregarding everything that joins all of us in our common humanity.

As Wilders’ book talks about terrorism and also individual crimes, like killing of the infamous cartoonist van Gogh, attempted murder of Kurt Westergaard, and alleged death threats to Wilders himself, I should in the very beginning say that I consider every human life to be sacred, regardless of religion or political affiliation, murder to be a hideous crime and in line with the teachings of the Holy Quran, abhorrent like a genocide or a holocaust:

On account of this, We prescribed for the children of Israel that whosoever killed a person — unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land — it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoso gave life to one, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind. And Our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land. (Al Quran 5:33)

I would rather be Able than Kane in the duel between the two brothers.  The Holy Quran describes their story in some detail.  Able did not want to kill even in self defense, given the fact that Kane was his brother and he was not sure, whether it would be sinful to kill him.  The Quranic description is:

And relate to them truly the story of the two sons of Adam, when they each offered an offering, and it was accepted from one of them and was not accepted from the other. The latter said, ‘I will surely kill thee.’ The former replied, ‘Allah accepts only from the righteous.  ‘If thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I am not going to stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee. I do fear Allah, the Lord of the universe.  ‘I wish that thou shouldst bear my sin as well as thy sin, and thus be among the inmates of the Fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong.’  But his mind induced him to kill his brother, so he killed him and became one of the losers.   (Al Quran 5:28-31)

Now, let us talk about racism and similar factors that divide human society.  “Racism, also called racialism ,  any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called ‘races,'” according to Encyclopedia Britannica, “that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some races are innately superior to others.”  Like racism falsely attributed several features to race, Wilders wants to attribute them to the religion of Islam or being a Muslim.  The creed of Islam is, “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah.”  Now, the first part of this creed, as an expression of Monotheism, is shared by all Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Islam and Christianity.  So, Wilders will not see pathology in that.  But, some how the second part of the creed, “Muhammad, is a prophet of God,” according to Wilders, somehow transforms a person,  from a respectful human being, into a terrible beast, not deserving of human rights, which are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  According to his logic every time a Muslim does something wrong it helps confirm his bogeyman and his conceptualization of the Muslims.  What is so wrong with this one clause,  “Muhammad, is a prophet of God,” which should divide the world into two?  Let us cast an eye on this personality that has captivated the attention of 1.5 billion Muslims in very positive tones and of the Islamophobes in such negative hues.

Tribute to Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and Quran by non-Muslim writers

Muhammad: the Light for the Dark Ages of Europe!

The Message: Mohammed: Messenger of God (A movie)

Wilders specific criticism against the Prophet will be refuted in a separate post.  But, here let me say, I am not here to apologize for every wrong a Muslim commits and there are many Muslims, who fall short on one parameter or the other.  The point I want to make here is against guilt be association.  There are still Christians, approximately 45% of USA population, who are creationists and believe in young earth, merely a few thousand years old, would that make Wilders an irrational, who does not believe in science?  Head of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Warren Jeffs practiced polygamy and allegations of incest were raised against him, would that make Wilders a fellow Christian, a polygamist and a believer in incest, if we choose to associate him with every wrong done by any Christian, any where in the world!  The recent killer or terrorist from Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, who killed seventy of his own countrymen, shared his religion and Islamophobia with Wilders, are we then to assume that Wilders is a terrorist, by evoking guilt be association?

“Moral improvement can be understood in terms of what the philosopher Peter Singer calls ‘the expanding circle.’ People have steadily expanded the mental dotted line that embraces the entities considered worthy of moral consideration. The circle has been poked outward from the family and village to the clan, the tribe, the nation, the race, and most recently (as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) to all of humanity. This expansion has happened for a number of reasons. As people in more parts of the planet become economically interdependent, the hatred between them decreases, for the simple reason that you can’t kill someone and trade with him too. Our sympathy response can also be cranked up by new kinds of information demonstrating that other folks are similar to ourselves. Words and images from erstwhile enemies can make it impossible to continue to believe that they are subhuman. A historical record can warn against self-defeating cycles of vendetta. ….. An expansion of sympathy may come from something as basic as the requirement to be logically consistent (and hence taken seriously) when imploring other people to behave in certain ways. People come to realize that they cannot force others to abide by rules that they themselves flout. Egoistic, sexist, racist, and xenophobic attitudes are logically inconsistent with the demand that everyone respect a single code of behavior.”

Wilders rather than benefitting from this growing trend of human compassion wants to divide our global village into two camps of Muslims and everyone else.  He was raised as a Catholic, but did leave the Church at some point and spent some time in Israel.  Given his background in Abrahamic faiths, he has more in common with the Muslims than Hindus, Buddhist and followers of Confucius.  But, his selection of Islam for his hatred, tells us that it is not rooted in any principled opposition but he has some axe to grind.

Geert Wilders founded a Dutch right-wing political party, the Party for Freedom (PVV) after his departure from the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy VVD in September 2004.  Wilders could not accept the VVD’s positive stance towards Turkey’s possible accession to the European Union, and left the party disgruntled.  Ever since he has stood against any thing related to Islam in anyway.  Wilders is full of contradictions, not only in his recent book but also in his political life.  The most dramatic contradiction being that on the one hand he supports nationalist agenda for the country and on the other hand his party gets majority of its financial support from foreign countries. As the party does not disclose its finances, it is unknown who are financing the PVV. According to Hero Brinkman, the most prominent member to leave the party, the PVV gets most of its finances from certain foreign (American) lobby-groups.[2]

In my refutation here, I have borrowed some materials from Wikipedia and retained all the links and references to give due credit.

 Wilders stands for only one human right: Freedom of Speech

In the opening chapter he espouses the merits of settling differences with pen and not with force or axes.  I may agree with many of his assertions in this chapter and would agree with Wilders that there should be freedom of speech and we should settle our differences with pen.  But, it seems that he stands for only one of the human rights.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was the summation of human philosophical, religious and political wisdom of the ages in 1949 and has thirty different articles.  By arguing for Administrative detentions for suspects of terrorism, who could be merely people that Wilders did not like and reported to the authorities or his political opponents, he seeks to violate most if not all of the human rights prescribed in this declaration, which has served the world well for the last seven decades:

Article 1.

• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

• Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

• Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

• Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

• Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Administrative detentions are defined in the law of many of the world’s states. In democratic countries using administrative detention as a counter-terrorism measure, the rationale given by its proponents is that legal existing systems are ill suited to handle the specific challenges presented by terrorism. Proponents of administrative detention maintain that criminal law’s reliance on defendant rights and strict rules of evidence cannot be used effectively to remove the threat of dangerous terrorists. Some of the reasons often used to support this claim are that the information used to identify terrorists and their plots may include extremely sensitive intelligence sources and methods, the disclosure of which during trial would undermine future counter-terrorism operations. It is also claimed that the conditions under which some suspected terrorists are captured, especially in combat zones, make it impossible to prove criminal cases using normal evidentiary rules.^[2] Proponents also maintain that criminal prosecution is designed primarily to punish past behavior, thus it is deliberately skewed in favor of defendant, in order to assure that few, if any, innocents are punished. Counter-terrorism, on the other hand, aims to prevent future action, and thus requires a system that is weighed more heavily toward reducing the possibility of future harm, by ensuring that no guilty party will go free.   It violates the founding principle of Western justice, “Innocent until proven guilty!”

The Laws of War are also seen by the proponents as inadequate. These laws allow the capture of enemy fighters, and also allow holding them for the duration of hostilities without trial. However, these laws grew out of the need to regulate combat between professional armies accountable to a sovereign state, who were engaged in combat of possibly lengthy, but finite duration. Attempting to apply these laws to terrorists who are intermingled with a civilian population and accountable to no-one opens the possibility of indefinite detention without trial, combined with a substantial likelihood of error.^[3]

Opponents of administrative detention challenge the above assumptions. While acknowledging the need to protect the sources and methods used to obtain sensitive intelligence, they maintain that existing laws, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), successfully balance the need to protect sensitive information, including the sources and means of intelligence gathering, with defendants’ fair trial rights. They point to the historical record of prosecutors who were able to obtain convictions against terrorists on the basis of existing laws.^[4] Opponents maintain that in essence, administrative detention is a form of collective punishment like being used in Israel. Since it does not require proof of individual guilt, it attributes to all members of a group the actions of a few.^[5]

Administrative detention is arrest and detention of individuals by the state without trial, usually for security reasons. A large number of countries,^[1] both democratic and undemocratic, resort to administrative detention as a means to combat terrorism, control illegal immigration, or to protect the ruling regime.

Unlike criminal incarceration (imprisonment) imposed upon on conviction following a trial, administrative detention is a forward-looking mechanism. While criminal proceedings have a retrospective focus – they seek to determine whether a defendant committed an offense in the past – the reasoning behind administrative detention often is based upon contentions that the suspect is likely to pose a threat in the future. It is meant to be preventive in nature rather than punitive (see preventive detention). The practice has been criticized by human rights organizations as a breach of civil and political rights.

To read about, how the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace be on him, treated the prisoners of war, go to the following article:

Fundamental versus allegoric: War and Peace in Islam.

Crusade and Jihad with Pen — Not with Axes, Tanks, F-16 or Nukes

In the first chapter of his book Geert Wilders lays down a principle that we should settle our differences with pen rather than with arms and ammunition.  But, despite his years of experience in politics, he fails to recognize that polite language helps far more in settling differences rather than harsh one sided criticism, slander and abuse.  We agree, however, on the main premise that this is an age of pen! Incidentally, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has been preaching and practicing this for the last 125 years and if others had followed our suggestions, perhaps we could have avoided 60 million casualties of the WWI and WWII.  The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani wrote:

I have brought you a commandment which is that Jihad with the sword has been ended but the Jihad of the purification of your spirits must continue to be waged. I say this not on my own but in order to proclaim the design of God. Reflect on the Hadith of Bukhari wherein it is stated that the Promised Messiah would put an end to fighting for the faith. Accordingly I command those who have joined my ranks that they should discard all such notions. They should purify their Jihad with the Sword hearts and foster their mercy and should have sympathy for the afflicted. They should spread peace on the earth, for this would cause their faith to spread. They should not wonder how this would come about. As God Almighty has utilized the elements and all earthly means for the purpose of bringing about new inventions to serve human needs like mechanical locomotion, etc., in the same way He will put His angels to work for the fulfillment of spiritual needs through heavenly signs, without the intervention of human agencies and there will appear many flashes of light whereby the eyes of multitudes will be opened.

[Government Angrezi Aur Jihad, Ruhani Khaza’in, vol. 17, p. 15]

Don Quixote of our Times: Wilders

Tilting at windmills is an English idiom, which means attacking imaginary enemies, or fighting unwinnable or futile battles. The phrase is sometimes used to describe confrontations where adversaries are incorrectly perceived, or courses of action that are based on misinterpreted or misapplied heroic, romantic, or idealistic justifications.

Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, “Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.””What giants?” asked Sancho Panza.”Those you see over there,” replied his master, “with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length.””Take care, sir,” cried Sancho. “Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone.”

—Part 1, Chapter VIII. Of the valourous Don Quixote’s success in the dreadful and never before imagined Adventure of the Windmills, with other events worthy of happy record.

Wilders appears to be perfect incarnation of Don Quixote.  He appears to be fighting all the Muslims for his differences with the extremist Muslims, with whom majority of the Muslims do not identify.  He is constantly tilting at the Windmills, by fighting Sharia Law, whereas majority of the Muslims do not propose Sharia Law and it has been shown in elections in the Muslim countries.  But, our Don Quixote knows no stopping, he keeps on fighting.

Wilders seems to be promoting collective punishment

His whole book seems like a charge sheet against 1.5 billion Muslims, majority of whom do not even know, what is going on in Netherlands, that a few are demanding Sharia Law in the West and few Don Quixote like Wilders are fighting this alleged threat of the Sharia Law.  He wants to stereotype all Muslims after the worst apples and promote collective punishment for them, for actual and perceived crimes of a few.  He is a new kind of racist, who judges men not by their skin color but by their single belief, in the Prophet of Islam, who according to the Holy Quran, was mercy for the whole mankind and his life history and continued influence attests to that.

Wilder seems to be making a case for collective punishment of the Muslims, no matter where they may be living, in Europe, USA or Middle East.  Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behavior of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions. In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions. Historically, occupying powers have used collective punishment to retaliate against and deter attacks on their forces by resistance movements (e.g. destroying whole towns and villages where such attacks have occurred).  Only Muslims he wants to help are some women in Saudi Arabia.

The collective human conscience has revolted against collective punishments as Wikipedia records many instances of it:

The Expulsion of Germans after World War II by, among others, Czechs and Poles, has been sometimes justified as collective punishment. The goal was to punish the Germans;,^{[9][10][11][12]} the Allies declared them collectively guilty of German war crimes.^{[13][14][15][16]} In the US and UK the ideas of German collective guilt and collective punishment originated not with the US and British people, but on higher policy levels.^[17] Not until late in the war did the US public assign collective responsibility to the German people.^[17] The most notable policy document containing elements of collective guilt and collective punishment is JCS 1067 from early 1945.^[17] Collective punishment has also been implicated in the American food policy in occupied Germany, with President Truman responding to complaints from Senators that “that although all Germans might not be guilty for the war, it would be too difficult to try to single out for better treatment those who had nothing to do with the Nazi regime and its crimes”. Months earlier amongst many others “U.S. Catholic Bishops had already spoken out against the restrictions on food exports into occupied Germany” warning that “future generations may well charge the victors with guilt of inhumanities which are reminiscent of Nazism and Fascism.”^[18]

According to the New York Times, the British planned “‘collective punishment’ for aiding Reds, rewards and more troops” in Malaya in 1951.^[19] The British used collective punishment as an official policy to suppress the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya in 1952.^[20] In 1956, Britain officially used collective punishment in Cyprus in the form of evicting families from their homes and closing shops anywhere British soldiers and police had been murdered, to obtain information about the identity(ies) of the attackers^[21] Today, it is considered by most nations contradictory to the modern concept of due process, where each individual receives separate treatment based on his or her role in the crime in question. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically forbids collective punishment.

Joseph Stalin‘s mass deportations of many nations of the USSR to remote regions (including the Chechens, Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans and many others) is an example of officially-orchestrated collective punishment.

The partial removal of potentially trouble-making ethnic groups was a technique used consistently by Stalin during his career: Poles (1939–1941 and 1944–1945), Romanians (1941 and 1944–1953), Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians (1941 and 1945–1949), Volga Germans (1941), Chechens, Ingushs (1944). Shortly before, during and immediately after World War II, Stalin conducted a series of deportations on a huge scale which profoundly affected the ethnic map of the Soviet Union.[2] It is estimated that between 1941 and 1949 nearly 3.3 million were deported to Siberia and the Central Asian republics.^[22] By some estimates up to 43% of the resettled population died of diseases and malnutrition.^[23]

The Party for Freedom is in complete denial of Muslim heritage

Regarding immigration and culture, the party believes that the Judeo-Christian and humanist traditions should be taken as the dominant culture in the Netherlands, and that immigrants should adapt accordingly. The party wants a halt to immigration from non-Western countries. It is sceptical towards the EU, is against future EU enlargement to countries like Turkey and opposes a dominant presence of Islam in the Netherlands.^[46]

Wilders and his party is in complete denial of Islam’s contribution to Europe and her renaissance and he alludes to it in the last chapter of his book by saying, “In other words, we owe nothing to Islam.”  The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has a collection of scores of articles about Muslim heritage, available in Islam for the West website.

President Barrack Obama’s Cairo Address

Wilders brings out this speech and criticizes it, I will hope that the White House will refute the allegations, but, I want to quote some portions of Obama’s speech:

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

…

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: “Out of many, one.”

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

Separation of Mosque Church and State

He continuously criticizes Islam by saying that it is not only a religion but is a totalitarian political ideology.  I beg to differ.  We have article after article showing Separation of Mosque-Church and State in Islam and many of these articles are linked in our new site: Islam for the West:

Solomonic wisdom needed to establish Separation of Mosque-Church-Synagogue and State

Religion, Politics and Human Rights

A half truth is a whole lie

Wilders book is filled with scores of half truths.  Here I bring out only one of the most dramatic ones from his second chapter:

Most people today, even most Christians, will acknowledge that many Christians throughout history committed terrible crimes in the name of Christ.  (John Quincey) Adams, however, rightly observed that such actions actually violate Christian doctrines.  This is not the case with Islam, since the Koran plainly sanctions violence in the name of Allah.

The fact of the matter is that countless verses of the Bible suggest stoning to death for different offences and even minor deficiencies.  The Quran on the other hand gave permission for only defensive warfare.

Violence in the Bible and Jihad in the Quran

Let me introduce two Exhibits in defense of the Holy Quran.

My Exhibit A: Fundamental versus allegoric: War and Peace in Islam.

Exhibit B: War Verses of the Holy Quran.

Additionally, it is also true that the Europeans learnt their religious freedom from Islam:

‘Let the Muslim be my Master in Outward Things.’ References to Islam in the Promotion of Religious Tolerance in Christian Europe

Umar Farooq versus Heraclius: Who gave us our Religious Freedoms?

Umar Farooq: Who pioneered religious freedom for the whole of humanity

Islam means peace but some Muslims can be violent

I am an apologist for Ahmadiyyat: True Islam.  By the Grace of Allah, I can demonstrate that the early history of Islam and 125 year history of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community meets the highest ideals of humanity of peaceful co-existence.  However, it cannot be said of all the Muslims, both contemporary and historic.  I will agree with Geert Wilders when he talks about some human right abuses in the so called Muslim countries, about some aspects of Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam or about prohibition on non-Muslims to proselytize, in many countries including Morocco.  Such prohibition clearly violates the freedom of speech of the non-Muslims and here I will stand with Wilders.  For an honest and genuine study of human rights and Islam, I will refer the readers to the following article:

An invitation to other religions: demonstrating human rights and Universal Brotherhood from your scriptures

Epilogue

Geert Wilders is not capable of flexibility of thought.  He sees the world black and white, ‘either you are with us or you are with the terrorists!’ as the Ex President of USA, George W Bush would say.  Wilders knows no nuance position.  He fails to recognize that Islam and Muslims are not monolithic. The Muslims come with different theological, political and social views. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believes in complete separation of Mosque and State and strongly urges religious freedom for every human being.

Wilders has been on record saying,  “I don’t hate Muslims, I hate Islam.” So, by his own admission he is an Islamophobe.  He describes very little in his book as to what is wrong with Islam, even though he does bring out incidents of cruelty and injustice by some bad actors, who call themselves Muslims.  Perhaps Wilders can learn Islam better from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, whose motto is, “Love for all and hatred for none!”  Not even for Geert Wilders.  Let me suggest to him that he can learn better about Islam by reading some of the books of Karen Armstrong and she has also written one to teach him some human compassion.  The title of her most recent book is: Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life.

References

1.  Traynor, Ian (17 February 2008). “‘I don’t hate Muslims. I hate Islam,’ says Holland’s rising political star”. The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/17/netherlands.islam. Retrieved 15 March 2009.

2. Lobbykantoren VS steunen PVV (Nu.nl, 21-03-2012)