Print
Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions
by Fox News
Thanks to Adam Dorr for the link.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313741,00.html
Threats of murder. Fears of riots and religious violence. Demands for censorship. Politicians in hiding, fearing for their lives. A government preparing for the worst.
It's happening right now in a most unlikely place ... the Netherlands, once regarded as Europe's quietest and most stable nation.
And it's all happening because of a 10-minute movie that hasn't even been made yet.
It's the work of Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, who calls his movie "a call to shake off the creeping tyranny of Islamicization." Wilders plans to present it to his country on television sometime next month.
"People who watch the movie will see that the Koran is very much alive today, leading to the destruction of everything we in the Western world stand for, which is respect and tolerance," Wilders, the 41-year-old leader of the right-wing Party for Freedom, said in a telephone interview.
"The tsunami of Islamicization is coming to Europe. We should come to be far stronger."
Like other European countries, the Netherlands is struggling to cope with an influx of Muslim immigrants, and the newcomers are often relegated to working at low-paying jobs and living in high-crime ghettos. Though the Dutch boast of their culture of tolerance, tensions have been high, with some blaming rising unemployment and crime on newcomers from Muslim countries like Turkey, Morocco and Somalia.
In the late 1990s, political leaders like Pim Fortuyn, Somalian-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali and outspoken filmmaker Theo van Gogh seemed to tap into a growing well of resentment against Muslims and criticism of Islam.
In 2002, tensions broke into outright murder when Fortuyn was shot by an animal rights activist who told the judge in the case that he was acting on behalf of the country's Muslims. Two years later, van Gogh was shot, stabbed and nearly decapitated on an Amsterdam street by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Muslim and a Dutch citizen of Moroccan descent.
Van Gogh, with Hirsi Ali, had recently made the film "Submission," a 10-minute movie that the two said depicted the abuse of women in Islamic cultures. After van Gogh's murder, the Dutch government placed public figures known for their anti-Muslim stances in safehouses.
Among them was the parliamentarian Geert Wilders. He hasn't been out of government protection since, a situation he said "I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy," and his views on Islam have only hardened.
Four months ago, he called for the Koran to be outlawed in the Netherlands.
"I believe our culture is much better than the retarded Islamic cultures," he told FOXNews.com in a telephone interview. "Ninety-nine percent of the intolerance in the world comes back to the Islamic religion and the Koran."
Though he refuses to claim the mantle of van Gogh's successor, Wilders clearly sees himself as continuing the controversial filmmaker's work. He acknowledges the similarities between "Submission" and his own 10-minute work, about five minutes of which have been completed, he said.
"I have so much respect for van Gogh's movie, aimed at one part of the Koran, women's bodies, one very bad part of the Koran," Wilders said. "I will use not only that theme but many others. Of course at the end it is a different movie."
Though Wilders has remained steadfastly vague about the specific contents of his movie, saying he wants to maximize the "moment of the broadcast itself," he added that it will include "images and parts of real-time movies that really happen in the Netherlands and the U.K. and the Middle East, the intolerance of the Koran that is still alive and vivid today."
Wilders, raised Catholic but long an atheist, said he's working with professors who are experts on the Koran and Islamic culture, professional filmmakers and scriptwriters to complete his film, which he hopes to broadcast next month on "Nova," a popular news program on Dutch public television. If "Nova" refuses to air the program, he said, he will broadcast the movie using the air time his political party is guaranteed by the government.
The Dutch government, which is protecting Wilders, has publicly warned him about the potential for violence at the completion of his film and has expressed concern over his personal safety. The government is also concerned about peace within the country and interests abroad. In 2005, cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper led to Danish embassies being set on fire, multi-million-dollar anti-Danish consumer boycotts in the Middle East, and hundreds of deaths in riots across the Muslim world.
"The government is taking the announcement of this movie quite seriously," said Floris van Hovell, a spokesman for the Dutch Embassy in Washington, D.C. "Obviously, because the movie hasn't been made, we cannot say anything about the movie until the movie has been shown, but the message Mr. Wilders has told us he wants to portray is disturbing."
Asked if the government plans to beef up security, Van Hovell said he couldn't comment. But he did say that the government is making a concerted effort to reach out to the Muslim community in the Netherlands and the larger Muslim world.
"We're explaining that in the Netherlands you have freedom of expression, and that at the same time the Dutch government is very concerned about the message Mr. Wilders supposedly wants to portray in his movie," van Hovell said.
Wilders has requested additional personal security from the government.
Wilders' rhetoric may have struck a chord among a part of the Dutch population. One poll suggests that if elections were held today, his Freedom Party would win 26 seats in the 150-seat Tweede Kamer -- Holland's House of Representatives -- up from nine the party won last November.
Muslim reaction to Wilders' film has been predictably less supportive. Some are calling for it to be outlawed before it is broadcast, and groups of both Muslims and non-Muslims have publicly denounced the film.
"I think he's addicted to the attention of the media," said Zainab al-Touraihi, secretary-general of the Contact Body for Muslims, the official Muslim advisory body to the Dutch government. "He's doing it for political reasons, and I'm sure he's getting more and more votes. And that's the scary thing, actually."
She said she supported Wilders' right to make the movie, though she said she was certain it would be skewed and harmful to both Dutch Muslims and the Netherlands as a whole.
"He would like to see that every Muslim woman is in prayers and held at home and that they have no rights, but he's not looking at Muslims these days," she said. "The Koran is a matter of interpretation, just like the Bible and the Torah. You need to interpret, not take it literally."
Al-Touraihi's group has long had a standing invitation to Wilders to speak to its members or take part in a debate. And Wilders has always ignored it, she said.
"If he really believed in these things, he would go out and sit with us and talk about issues, but he's never responded, so it's a one-man show and a one-way show," al-Touraihi said. "As a member of parliament, he can get every camera in front of him and say whatever he wants, but he never goes out for debates because I think he knows that he would lose voters."
For Wilders, though, all the criticism is just proof that he's on the right path.
"The reaction is proof of how much the movie is needed," he said. "This is not Morocco. We're living in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, a free country."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313741,00.html
It's happening right now in a most unlikely place ... the Netherlands, once regarded as Europe's quietest and most stable nation.
And it's all happening because of a 10-minute movie that hasn't even been made yet.
It's the work of Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, who calls his movie "a call to shake off the creeping tyranny of Islamicization." Wilders plans to present it to his country on television sometime next month.
"People who watch the movie will see that the Koran is very much alive today, leading to the destruction of everything we in the Western world stand for, which is respect and tolerance," Wilders, the 41-year-old leader of the right-wing Party for Freedom, said in a telephone interview.
"The tsunami of Islamicization is coming to Europe. We should come to be far stronger."
Like other European countries, the Netherlands is struggling to cope with an influx of Muslim immigrants, and the newcomers are often relegated to working at low-paying jobs and living in high-crime ghettos. Though the Dutch boast of their culture of tolerance, tensions have been high, with some blaming rising unemployment and crime on newcomers from Muslim countries like Turkey, Morocco and Somalia.
In the late 1990s, political leaders like Pim Fortuyn, Somalian-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali and outspoken filmmaker Theo van Gogh seemed to tap into a growing well of resentment against Muslims and criticism of Islam.
In 2002, tensions broke into outright murder when Fortuyn was shot by an animal rights activist who told the judge in the case that he was acting on behalf of the country's Muslims. Two years later, van Gogh was shot, stabbed and nearly decapitated on an Amsterdam street by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Muslim and a Dutch citizen of Moroccan descent.
Van Gogh, with Hirsi Ali, had recently made the film "Submission," a 10-minute movie that the two said depicted the abuse of women in Islamic cultures. After van Gogh's murder, the Dutch government placed public figures known for their anti-Muslim stances in safehouses.
Among them was the parliamentarian Geert Wilders. He hasn't been out of government protection since, a situation he said "I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy," and his views on Islam have only hardened.
Four months ago, he called for the Koran to be outlawed in the Netherlands.
"I believe our culture is much better than the retarded Islamic cultures," he told FOXNews.com in a telephone interview. "Ninety-nine percent of the intolerance in the world comes back to the Islamic religion and the Koran."
Though he refuses to claim the mantle of van Gogh's successor, Wilders clearly sees himself as continuing the controversial filmmaker's work. He acknowledges the similarities between "Submission" and his own 10-minute work, about five minutes of which have been completed, he said.
"I have so much respect for van Gogh's movie, aimed at one part of the Koran, women's bodies, one very bad part of the Koran," Wilders said. "I will use not only that theme but many others. Of course at the end it is a different movie."
Though Wilders has remained steadfastly vague about the specific contents of his movie, saying he wants to maximize the "moment of the broadcast itself," he added that it will include "images and parts of real-time movies that really happen in the Netherlands and the U.K. and the Middle East, the intolerance of the Koran that is still alive and vivid today."
Wilders, raised Catholic but long an atheist, said he's working with professors who are experts on the Koran and Islamic culture, professional filmmakers and scriptwriters to complete his film, which he hopes to broadcast next month on "Nova," a popular news program on Dutch public television. If "Nova" refuses to air the program, he said, he will broadcast the movie using the air time his political party is guaranteed by the government.
The Dutch government, which is protecting Wilders, has publicly warned him about the potential for violence at the completion of his film and has expressed concern over his personal safety. The government is also concerned about peace within the country and interests abroad. In 2005, cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper led to Danish embassies being set on fire, multi-million-dollar anti-Danish consumer boycotts in the Middle East, and hundreds of deaths in riots across the Muslim world.
"The government is taking the announcement of this movie quite seriously," said Floris van Hovell, a spokesman for the Dutch Embassy in Washington, D.C. "Obviously, because the movie hasn't been made, we cannot say anything about the movie until the movie has been shown, but the message Mr. Wilders has told us he wants to portray is disturbing."
Asked if the government plans to beef up security, Van Hovell said he couldn't comment. But he did say that the government is making a concerted effort to reach out to the Muslim community in the Netherlands and the larger Muslim world.
"We're explaining that in the Netherlands you have freedom of expression, and that at the same time the Dutch government is very concerned about the message Mr. Wilders supposedly wants to portray in his movie," van Hovell said.
Wilders has requested additional personal security from the government.
Wilders' rhetoric may have struck a chord among a part of the Dutch population. One poll suggests that if elections were held today, his Freedom Party would win 26 seats in the 150-seat Tweede Kamer -- Holland's House of Representatives -- up from nine the party won last November.
Muslim reaction to Wilders' film has been predictably less supportive. Some are calling for it to be outlawed before it is broadcast, and groups of both Muslims and non-Muslims have publicly denounced the film.
"I think he's addicted to the attention of the media," said Zainab al-Touraihi, secretary-general of the Contact Body for Muslims, the official Muslim advisory body to the Dutch government. "He's doing it for political reasons, and I'm sure he's getting more and more votes. And that's the scary thing, actually."
She said she supported Wilders' right to make the movie, though she said she was certain it would be skewed and harmful to both Dutch Muslims and the Netherlands as a whole.
"He would like to see that every Muslim woman is in prayers and held at home and that they have no rights, but he's not looking at Muslims these days," she said. "The Koran is a matter of interpretation, just like the Bible and the Torah. You need to interpret, not take it literally."
Al-Touraihi's group has long had a standing invitation to Wilders to speak to its members or take part in a debate. And Wilders has always ignored it, she said.
"If he really believed in these things, he would go out and sit with us and talk about issues, but he's never responded, so it's a one-man show and a one-way show," al-Touraihi said. "As a member of parliament, he can get every camera in front of him and say whatever he wants, but he never goes out for debates because I think he knows that he would lose voters."
For Wilders, though, all the criticism is just proof that he's on the right path.
"The reaction is proof of how much the movie is needed," he said. "This is not Morocco. We're living in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, a free country."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 51 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #97565 by alexmzk on December 12, 2007 at 11:13 am
i don't really know what he's hoping to achieve with this. at most we'll get all the Sudan-style nutters venting their rage and attacking embassies (again) and the "moderate" Muslims in the Netherlands (probably everywhere else too) will just be very offended indeed.Other Comments by alexmzk
3. Comment #97566 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on December 12, 2007 at 11:14 am
Ban the Koran - oh dear, this bloke just shot himself in the foot. Plank.On the other hand I was interested to read;
"The Koran is a matter of interpretation, just like the Bible and the Torah. You need to interpret, not take it literally."
That's possibly the first time I've ever seen that kind of statement. Would be interesting to see the reaction of a number of mosques if they were presented with that idea.
Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy
4. Comment #97567 by Diacanu on December 12, 2007 at 11:14 am
Ban the Koran?Nah.
Maybe just a Surgeon General's warning sticker.
"Warning: May cause fundamentalist wackaloonism in certain people. If symptoms occur, consult a scientist".
Other Comments by Diacanu
5. Comment #97569 by ericcolumba on December 12, 2007 at 11:18 am
I think it's important to remind people that being a muslim is not a race just a religion and a particularly intollerant one at that.It is with great dismay that I look how the left in britain and elsewhere are prepared to defend a dogma which is mysoganistic, homophobic and racist.
How on earth can the left and the so called liberals align themselves with the extreme right?
In the UK, the pseudo left of George Galloway depend on Muslim votes and revel in anti American and anti Israeli rhetoric, while at the same time abandoning leftwing arabs including a group of two and a half thousand arab intelectuals who have pettitioned the UN about the preachers of hate. The same preachers of hate who are members of the Muslim Brotherhood that Ken Livingstone (leftwing mayor of London) have aligned themselves with.
Anyway, I thought that was worth mentioning.
Other Comments by ericcolumba
6. Comment #97570 by Floris Meijer on December 12, 2007 at 11:18 am
Obviously, the more attention this movie gets the more it will be noticed. If this movie was just ignored in news media the stirrup now would be much less. Then again, I don't see what the problem is. So what if someone makes pictures of the Prophet or tears pages out of the Koran. Why can't these Islamists just laugh about it and move on? The problem isn't Wilders but the inherent intolerance of religion.
Other Comments by Floris Meijer
7. Comment #97571 by ericcolumba on December 12, 2007 at 11:23 am
You might find this worth watching/listening to.Nick Cohen criticises what British liberal left has become 1
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=agQO69H7ckc
Nick Cohen criticises what British liberal left has become 2
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EQvFP4yrZrI&feature=related
Other Comments by ericcolumba
8. Comment #97583 by ligfietser on December 12, 2007 at 11:56 am
Wilders an atheist? Don't make me laugh. He is harsh on secular, moderate muslims like Aboutaleb, the man who kept the peace in Amsterdam when Van Gogh was murdered. But he does not have the slightest problem with the christian fundamentalists in the Netherlands, who even entered the government last year. He has repeatedly said christianity is no problem, because that's our tradition and the base of our culture. This guy is a straight-ahead racist, using islam as an excuse. Other Comments by ligfietser
9. Comment #97586 by Vadjong on December 12, 2007 at 11:58 am
Zainab al-Touraihi :"The Koran is a matter of interpretation, just like the Bible and the Torah. You need to interpret, not take it literally."
Oh dear, she's dead.
Other Comments by Vadjong
10. Comment #97595 by Gymnopedie on December 12, 2007 at 12:04 pm
"The Koran is a matter of interpretation..."Yea, I'm pretty sure saying that would get you killed in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and probably a few more places. It is that moderate Muslim voice that needs to speak out much, much more.
Other Comments by Gymnopedie
11. Comment #97604 by denoir on December 12, 2007 at 12:16 pm
How on earth can the left and the so called liberals align themselves with the extreme right?
It's called indiscriminate tolerance and is the worst form of moral corruption. If you accept everything then you go along with anything. If you think that there are no absolutes and that every moral philosophy and every opinion is equally valid then you equate the honest man and the murderer and the one that creates with the one that destroys.
What is worse is that the indiscriminately tolerant's lives depend on people with a specific set of values while at the same time condemning them. We live in a universe governed by physical laws. As living beings we need to take specific actions to survive. If you don't eat, you die. If you fall of a cliff, you die. There is nothing relative about it and it is not a matter of opinion. The human civilization and the lives of everybody on this planet depend on people that work with facts using a rational discourse. Our survival depends on - and always has - on people that don't think that anything goes. So you can see the evil in it and the blatantly auto destructive: they are not only biting the hand that feeds them but are doing so convinced of their moral righteousness.
Modern day liberalism is unfortunately a very distorted version of the original. The inviolable rights of the individual have mutated into universal tolerance. The irony is that while the mistake is simple to make, the two concepts are actually complete opposites. Tolerance of anything is guaranteed to violate the rights of the individual.
There is an interesting ethical connection to religion as well. Religion attacks reason and rationality and demands that we give it up for faith and mysticism. At the same time the religious people are dependent on food, water etc that can only be provided by a rational approach to the world. If they had their way and we destroyed reason and rationality and substituted it for faith, we would all starve to death - they included. Hence religious ideology is self-destructive and thus immoral in the same way as the indiscriminately tolerant is.
So while they may seem like polar opposites, their moral corruption is of the same type.
Other Comments by denoir
12. Comment #97605 by SilentMike on December 12, 2007 at 12:17 pm
2. Comment #97565 by alexmzk
i don't really know what he's hoping to achieve with this. at most we'll get all the Sudan-style nutters venting their rage and attacking embassies (again) and the "moderate" Muslims in the Netherlands (probably everywhere else too) will just be very offended indeed.
Banning the Koran is of course a nonesensical idea. But pressing the muslims isn't. Perhaps the "moderate" muslims require some offending. Maybe that's the kind of pressure that will make them reform and become truely moderate instead of just "moderate". Maybe that's what will get them to fight back against the fanatics.
When you can't convince people to do the right thing, you might want to try and shame them into it.
Other Comments by SilentMike
13. Comment #97617 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Frankly, this is one thing I'm unreservedly in favour of. Although insulting a specific individual is something I would personally reject, we do need muslims to be saturated with general critique and ridicule of the Koran, ala Pat Condell. I'm betting we will see, along with some regretable violence, more of the kind of liberal defence we heard from Zainab al-Touraihi. Bascially the muslim version of "Thats not MY God". Alone what she said in this interview was a great leap forward, plus she is a woman!She said she supported Wilders' right to make the movie, though she said she was certain it would be skewed and harmful to both Dutch Muslims and the Netherlands as a whole.
"He would like to see that every Muslim woman is in prayers and held at home and that they have no rights, but he's not looking at Muslims these days," she said. "The Koran is a matter of interpretation, just like the Bible and the Torah. You need to interpret, not take it literally."
Al-Touraihi's group has long had a standing invitation to Wilders to speak to its members or take part in a debate. And Wilders has always ignored it, she said.
"If he really believed in these things, he would go out and sit with us and talk about issues, but he's never responded, so it's a one-man show and a one-way show," al-Touraihi said. "As a member of parliament, he can get every camera in front of him and say whatever he wants, but he never goes out for debates because I think he knows that he would lose voters."
That is the jackpot as far as I am concerned, and while she may be right that the guy is a racist dork, he is nonetheless forcing her to take a very public, nuanced and liberal position on Islam as Ideology, not race. Pure ... fucking ... gold.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
14. Comment #97625 by Fanusi Khiyal on December 12, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Banning the Koran is of course a nonesensical idea.
Not necessarily, and certainly not 'of course'. Wilders makes the point that books like 'Mein Kampf' are banned Holland, except as reference books, so why not the Koran?
In Germany and Austria there are harsh laws for advocating Nazism or Fascism - why not the same thing for advocating Shariah?
That is the jackpot as far as I am concerned, and while she may be right that the guy is a racist dork
My two cents on this: It is fascinating, you know, that a certain type of supposed 'racist' only has trouble with one group; not with blacks, jews, asians, or any actual racial group, nor with Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Christian Arabs, Taoists, or Buddhists.
Only with one group.
I wonder why that is?
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
15. Comment #97630 by Unknown on December 12, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Geert Wilders again....I've said it before and I'll say it again. The guy is a hypocritical bigot.
Muslim extremism is bad, but when it come to christianity(Or the Judeo-Christian tradition as he likes to call it), then everything is fine.
*Sigh*
Other Comments by Unknown
16. Comment #97634 by Steve Wrathall on December 12, 2007 at 1:02 pm
>>al-Touraihi said. "... he never goes out for debates because I think he knows that he would lose voters."No, because he is afraid for his life and doesn't want to end up like Fortyn and van Gogh.
Other Comments by Steve Wrathall
17. Comment #97636 by Fanusi Khiyal on December 12, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Unknown
Muslim extremism is bad, but when it come to christianity(Or the Judeo-Christian tradition as he likes to call it), then everything is fine
That is because there is nothing in Christianity (short of, perhaps, the Lord's Army) that equals the sheer barbarity of Islam.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
18. Comment #97646 by phatbat on December 12, 2007 at 1:22 pm
"The Koran is a matter of interpretation, just like the Bible and the Torah. You need to interpret, not take it literally."This to me is the main problem.
Firstly, Who decided it is not to be taken literaly, i haven't read the qur'an but does it say in there that it wasn't to be taken literaly. If it was written in there somewhere then are you supposed to take the statement literaly? But i guess it isnt written in there. So someone has just decided. So who's interpretation is more valid, who arbitrates on this issue?
If this is true, that it is open to interpretation, then surely it shouldn't be held up by 'moderate' muslim teachers and parents as the indisputable word of god and make sure that every muslim takes it as a far lesser important thing than the general principles of kindness and compassion towards fellow man and family.
If it isn't open to interpretation and should be taken literaly then from the few passages i have read it is a pretty nasty piece of work, and there for should equaly not be treated with such reverance amoung 'moderate' muslim community and be pushed down a little in the rankings of important things to a muslim.
If they continue to bring up children in the indoctrinated belief that the words in the book are more important than anything and should be interpreted in this way, they can't very well complain and claim innocence when another evil teacher comes along with a different interpretation. On who's authority can they claim the other has interpreted it wrongly. They convieniently forget they did the initial brainwashing, or simply deny responsibility.
The 'moderates' do need to speak up but instead of saying things like that they need to start changing the way they bring up children into men in the muslim faith and we shouldn't let them off the hook for this.
Peace
Other Comments by phatbat
19. Comment #97653 by mmurray on December 12, 2007 at 1:34 pm
My two cents on this: It is fascinating, you know, that a certain type of supposed 'racist' only has trouble with one group; not with blacks, jews, asians, or any actual racial group, nor with Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Christian Arabs, Taoists, or Buddhists.
Only with one group.
I wonder why that is?
Because there is no political advantage in attacking these groups in Holland ?
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
20. Comment #97654 by dloubet on December 12, 2007 at 1:35 pm
"He would like to see that every Muslim woman is in prayers and held at home and that they have no rights, but he's not looking at Muslims these days," she said. "The Koran is a matter of interpretation, just like the Bible and the Torah. You need to interpret, not take it literally."So Zainab al-Touraihi, are you willing to go on record denouncing your more extreme or fundamentalist bretheren?
Other Comments by dloubet
21. Comment #97658 by wednesdayguevara on December 12, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Wilders makes the point that books like 'Mein Kampf' are banned Holland, except as reference books, so why not the Koran?
Because you don't counter bad ideas by banning them. That's not how it works in a free society, or at least that's not how it should work. In my county (Volusia), "Mein Kampf" is required reading in high school history class, not because the Florida school system wants to create generation after generation of Nazi sympathizers, but because reading "Mein Kampf" is the best way to get into Hitler's head. Banning ideas leads to ignorance. We must understand fully what we are against if we are to fight effectively against it.
Other Comments by wednesdayguevara
22. Comment #97661 by Corylus on December 12, 2007 at 1:49 pm
DenoirModern day liberalism is unfortunately a very distorted version of the original. The inviolable rights of the individual have mutated into universal tolerance. The irony is that while the mistake is simple to make, the two concepts are actually complete opposites. Tolerance of anything is guaranteed to violate the rights of the individual.
Well put.
Other Comments by Corylus
23. Comment #97667 by SilentMike on December 12, 2007 at 1:52 pm
14. Comment #97625 by Fanusi KhiyalBanning the Koran is of course a nonesensical idea.
Not necessarily, and certainly not 'of course'. Wilders makes the point that books like 'Mein Kampf' are banned Holland, except as reference books, so why not the Koran?
In Germany and Austria there are harsh laws for advocating Nazism or Fascism - why not the same thing for advocating Shariah?
I wouldn't ban 'Mein Kampf'. Speaking as a person who is 100% doomed for annihilation from the Nazi point of view, I just don't see the point. I do see the point of not allowing private racist organization to make money off it, but not of supressing it completely. I want people to be exposed to the past. Though I see why in Germany and its neighboring countries they may want to limit that book's distrebution.
As for Shariah, it isn't the Koran that's your problem. There are many books (worthless pieces of shit) being published now promoting Shariah law. If you have to ban something ban that krap, not a classical book that's a part of human history (plus one would have to wonder why you're not banning the bible). Banning the Koran is going too far. Even leaving the freedom of speach matter out of this (and it's hard to dismiss because banning books is a major step on the way to facism), this is a declaration of war on all muslims. We need to target the crackpots and give the others an out. When they're liberalized then we'll hit them with "your religion's a piece of krap" again and again till they give.
Other Comments by SilentMike
24. Comment #97676 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 2:02 pm
23. Comment #97667 by SilentMike on December 12, 2007 at 1:52 pmWe need to target the crackpots and give the others an out. When they're liberalized then we'll hit them with "your religion's a piece of krap" again and again till they give.
I like it SilentMike, in fact I love it:-)
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
25. Comment #97704 by Frankus1122 on December 12, 2007 at 2:31 pm
As for Shariah>
I should post this on the article about the girl who was killed by her father for not wearing the burka but I am here now:
The premiere of Ontario wanted to introduce Sharia law into the Ontario court system. Imagine that playing out.
We don't have to ban the Koran just ridicule it into submission. The Koran is fine except for all the nonsensical parts.
Other Comments by Frankus1122
26. Comment #97708 by monoape on December 12, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Whether or not this man is a racist, his stated intention of producing a film that challenges intolerant and violent beliefs and actions should be applauded and encouraged. The delusional need more ridicule and condemnation heaped on them - not less - especially the violent Islamic faction.If anyone wishes to live in a society that has, at its foundation, the right of free speech without fear of reprisal, then they must accept that right - whether or not they like where that free speech is directed.
If (when!) the Rage Boys start throwing petrol bombs or threatening violent retribution in response to his film, they should be dealt with by the same standards that the rest of us live by.
Other Comments by monoape
27. Comment #97709 by robotaholic on December 12, 2007 at 2:37 pm
hey you fellow Atheists and Agnostics- I just want to say I am glad you all exist and I am happy to be in the same camp that you all are in- we need to: continue to study & learn
continue to be outspoken
be persistant
just because cats can't be herded doesn't mean we all don't agree on a single point -
Religion is BAD- Faith is BAD-
and what are we FOR?:
Freedom &
appreciation for LIFE &
interest in science
Other Comments by robotaholic
28. Comment #97718 by notsobad on December 12, 2007 at 2:41 pm
That is because there is nothing in Christianity (short of, perhaps, the Lord's Army) that equals the sheer barbarity of Islam.
There isn't much like that now but there was just a few centuries ago.
Other Comments by notsobad
29. Comment #97738 by SilentMike on December 12, 2007 at 3:06 pm
24. Comment #97676 by briancoughlanworldcitizenThank you. We aim to please.
I think most of us here know what basically has to be done. It's getting the attention and having the most impact without hurting ourselves (In case of some muslims, in a very real sense) that is the problem. Forums and youtube are all a lot of fun, but how do we get the media working for us and giving us more exposure?
Other Comments by SilentMike
30. Comment #97747 by Crossman on December 12, 2007 at 3:14 pm
"Wilders makes the point that books like 'Mein Kampf' are banned Holland, except as reference books, so why not the Koran?"
There are both principled and practical objections. The principle of free speech has been asserted many times in this thread. On the practical side, the hardliners think the West is out to wage war on Islam. I want them to be proved wrong, not right, otherwise their appeal can only grow.
Other Comments by Crossman
31. Comment #97762 by Sam Slater on December 12, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I don't think banning a religion is the way forward, but I do have sympathy with the guy in that maybe we'd feel the same, if our lives were at risk. Bare this in mind before calling him a 'plank.'With Europe being democracies, and Muslims becoming a bigger influence in our societies, they are a BIG vote to catch for any political party, and as years go by, more and more political policies will pander to Muslim needs and ideas.
We are too tolerant, and if you tolerate the intolerant, then there will only be one winner.
We must set examples now. Muslims must respect our way of life, or leave Europe. Once fascism gets hold of, or influences, power, we Europeans of all people should know the consequences.
Other Comments by Sam Slater
32. Comment #97773 by sven_der_sar on December 12, 2007 at 4:02 pm
And it's all happening because of a 10-minute movie that hasn't even been made yet
...
In 2005, cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper led to Danish embassies being set on fire, multi-million-dollar anti-Danish consumer boycotts in the Middle East, and hundreds of deaths in riots across the Muslim world.
I am of course picking these two sentences out without much context, but I don't feel that there was much context provided... I think Hitchens would point out that this article leans towards identifying the objects of free speech as a cause of violence, yet lets the perpetrators of the violence itself off the hook.
Cartoons and unmade movies don't cause violence (as this article is subtly suggesting) - extremism can.
Other Comments by sven_der_sar
33. Comment #97781 by njwong on December 12, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Actually, the Koran is already available online, so it is quite pointless to ban it, except to make a political statement. Banning books is not effective in this day and age:http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran
Other Comments by njwong
34. Comment #97782 by Gymnopedie on December 12, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Multiple posters have mentioned this guy is a racist or possibly is one. I think that is a serious enough charge for those people to provide evidence for it. If he is, let it be known with evidence. If he isn't, then what is your point? Letting that sort of garbage float around in a forum like this makes Islam look like a race/ethnicity.So, evidence, please?
Other Comments by Gymnopedie
35. Comment #97843 by kraut on December 12, 2007 at 5:42 pm
One of the MP's main themes is safety and he said anyone convicted of three violent offences should be jailed for life. He also called for rehabilitation camps, expansion of random search areas to the entire country and a large increase in the number of police officers.He called for billions of euros in cuts to the overseas development budget — retaining only emergency aid — abolition of the Education and Economic Affairs ministries and reducing the public service by 50 percent. Child allowance payments should also be reduced.
Wilders claimed that scrapping minimum wage laws and liberalising redundancy legislation would lead to greater employment, news service NOS reported on Monday.
http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=17983
Your run off the mill neocon, nothing to get exited about. I think the US had just about enough of their sucessful policies. But if the Durch want to try? At least, they aren't able to invade anybody...maybe Belgium?
Just because somebody is against islam doesn't make him either an atheist or somebody who doesn't espouse an unreasonable ideology.
Other Comments by kraut
36. Comment #98022 by rod-the-farmer on December 13, 2007 at 2:05 am
I have lately wondered if western countries need to have their various embassies and consulates institute an "Our Beliefs" form. Each potential immigrant would have to sign that they understand that the country they may wish to emigrate to, does NOT allow male/female genital mutilation, does NOT allow clothing that masks the identity of the wearer, does NOT allow attacks against those of different or no faith, DOES allow freedom of/from religion, DOES allow female members of the society to vote, own property, appear in public un-escorted, marry who they wish, etc. etc. Anyone NOT signing and agreeing to this document will not be given an immigrant visa. Don't like it ? Stay home. By definition, you are emigrating because you want to make a better life for yourself. That WILL require you drop those attitudes and behaviours that are counter to those of your chosen destination. Anyone who DOES sign and later violates those beliefs in the host country will be immediately deported. Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
37. Comment #98046 by ligfietser on December 13, 2007 at 2:54 am
Multiple posters have mentioned this guy is a racist or possibly is one. I think that is a serious enough charge for those people to provide evidence for it. If he is, let it be known with evidence. If he isn't, then what is your point? Letting that sort of garbage float around in a forum like this makes Islam look like a race/ethnicity.
Like i said, the guy only attacks people with a muslim background. For him, you can do whatever you want, as long as you do not have an ethnicity associated with islam. If gays are beaten by men from a marroccan family, he is up in arms, islam did it. When gays are beaten by men with a dutch ethnicity, not a single word.
If a boy with a marrocan ethnicity robs, it's because of islam. If a marrocan boy is battered by skinheads, just silence. When the new government was installed, he attacked two secular, i-go-to-the-mosque-every-ramadan secretaries of state (one Turkish woman, never wearing an headscarf, one Marrocan man, always wearing a tie, famous for bridging the gap between whites and marrocan people). He said they were a danger for our secular society. In the same government, several christian fundamentalists were installed as ministers, who quickly started to undermine the gay rights and women's rights. And he praises them eventually.
In Holland, people with a north-african ethnicity are mostly muslims, whites are christian. How convenient.
Other Comments by ligfietser
38. Comment #98060 by Fanusi Khiyal on December 13, 2007 at 3:13 am
NotsobadThere isn't much like that now but there was just a few centuries ago.
We are not living a few centuries ago, we are living now, and right now Islam is the only major evil loose in the world, the only thing that poses a civilisational threat. Communism is finished. Fascism long dead. Islam is the only form of tyrrany that is left.
I wouldn't ban 'Mein Kampf'. Speaking as a person who is 100% doomed for annihilation from the Nazi point of view, I just don't see the point. I do see the point of not allowing private racist organization to make money off it, but not of supressing it completely. I want people to be exposed to the past. Though I see why in Germany and its neighboring countries they may want to limit that book's distrebution.
And that was the extent of my point. I was not arguing for or against banning the Koran, but pointing out that banning it is not 'of course' a ludicrous proposition.
As for Shariah, it isn't the Koran that's your problem. There are many books (worthless pieces of shit) being published now promoting Shariah law.
The Koran is the source of the Shariah, alongside the Hadith. And the reason that banning the Koran and banning the Bible are two different things, is that the Koran is inherently a political document. The Bible, in contrast, is a vast and vague book, filled with contradicions, as Sam Harris points out.
This point cannot be overstressed:
Islam is, first and foremost, a political system, before it is a matter of private sprituality. It outlines a system of government, totalitarian in nature, that is supposed to rule the world.
And that political system invariably and explicitly conflicts with the values of Enlightenment liberalism whereever the two meet.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
39. Comment #98127 by SilentMike on December 13, 2007 at 5:57 am
35. Comment #97843 by krautYour run off the mill neocon, nothing to get exited about.
I have to say that I don't like the way the word "neocon" is used around here in order to dismiss people. The guy can be wrong on some things (like banning the Koran), and right on others (like identifying Islam as a serious threat). Nobody's suggesting we campaign for the guy (Most of us don't live in the Netherlands anyway). But he may be worth a listen anyway.
Other Comments by SilentMike
40. Comment #98131 by lizaykpeeters on December 13, 2007 at 6:06 am
Your run off the mill neocon, nothing to get exited about. I think the US had just about enough of their sucessful policies. But if the Durch want to try? At least, they aren't able to invade anybody...maybe Belgium?
yeah right, why not? We have been without a legal government for more than six months now, maybe the Dutch should come and put things to rights.... :-)
Other Comments by lizaykpeeters
41. Comment #98145 by Dr Benway on December 13, 2007 at 6:20 am
The "Islam is..." debates are so frustrating and predictable. 1. Someone like Fanusi will argue that the Koran and Hadith say X.
2. Another will say, "Yes, but many Muslims don't interpret X that way."
3. The word "interpret" may mean, "they don't behave consistently with" or "they offer an explanation that removes the apparent, problematic literal meaning."
4. The explanations may appeal to the historical context in which the verses were written or other verses that subordinate the problematic teaching to a higher, more pro-social principle.
5. Rarely, the explanation may actually be a partial rejection of the Koran as a divine revelation uncontaminated with flawed, human opinion.
I wish more were clear about "interpret" right up front. To those who use the argument that many Muslims don't behave according to some problematic teaching, I would say they're point doesn't help. We are, after all, discussing the teaching.
I like to hear theological arguments in defense of moderate positions. But to date I've been unimpressed. They look rather "cake and eat it too."
I feel that the last solution, #5, is likely the way forward.
What annoys me is the general failure of most "Islam is..." debates to illuminate whether "moderate Islam" is some form of #4 or #5 above.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
42. Comment #98152 by SilentMike on December 13, 2007 at 6:35 am
41. Comment #98145 by Dr BenwayThe same problem exists for the bible, which also contains a set of laws and punshment for breaking them that would be considered unacceptable in any modern society. The idea is that people need to ignore what the book says. Moderates do ignore their holy books while pretending they're not ignoring them. In this way practically all christians are moderate (even the gay bashers usually ignore the parts about slavery, so they have their limits too). Moderates are still a problem because they're living a lie and may slip back into barbarism.
I think it is clear though that most muslims still have a rather long way to go in reforming their religion to catch up to liberal christians (corrected from: "muslims". Oops. S.M.) and jews.
Other Comments by SilentMike
43. Comment #98163 by Nighttripper on December 13, 2007 at 7:03 am
Ligfietser already explained what kind of a guy Wilders is, I will just add my own opinion. I said something about Geert Wilders in another article announcing his movie so I will repost that but first:
Pim Fortuyn was not shot "on behalf of the country's Muslims" he was shot because he had plans to introduce Mass-industry flats for pigs (stacking floor upon floor). I mean, the murderer was an animal rights activist... I must admit it sounds really sexy to pretend he did it for the Mulsims and tie it all together in an article but it's pretty far from the truth.
But on to our buddy Geert:
Geert Wilders is a populist politician. He is constantly trying to get into the Media with off-balanced comments on Islam and middle eastern foreigners in general designed to make people anxious about muslims in particular but praises the Christian and Jewish faiths as tolerant and good.
This man does not want to do anything against religion, just against muslims in general or actualy; foreigners in general and muslims in particular. He is riding on a wave of irrational fear. And I don't mean fear for extreme muslims or fundementalists, any muslim is bad in his book. The only people he is reaching with his hatespeeches on Islam are the ones who already are biased against muslims in general and have a discriminating view on foreigners. Saying things like "Muslims must burn their Koran's", comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf. Declaring; "I don't like the fact that two Muslims will soon be sitting here as members of the Upper House" after the last election.
That isn't gonna win anyone over to his side that wasn't already on it. Especially since he seems to be so in love with Christianity and Judaism.
About his view on Hirshi Ali's protection: Geert Wilders, together with the Christian Democratic Party of Jan-Peter Balkenende (the prime-minister) were the first ones to declare that "It's about time she starts coughing up money herself".
The thing I resent most about Wilders is that he is constantly putting himself in a victim role when he is being criticised by media or other political figures, saying that he is being demonised and that they are responsible if something terrible will happen to him. Trying to generate votes by posing as a victim not unlike our Mormon friend Mitt Romney does.
Nothing good can come from him, believe me as a Dutch guy being constantly confronted with this man and his biased views for the last few years.
For anyone interested here is an article written by a representative of Antifa which is an anti discrimination platform in the Netherlands:
Click me for the Antifa article! (in english).
Note though, that this is an opinionpiece by Antifa on Wilders. But most of it is a summing up of things he has declared since 2004.
Other Comments by Nighttripper
44. Comment #98190 by STLstrike3 on December 13, 2007 at 8:26 am
I think the Koran should be available for all who wish to read that rubbish.I applaud this guy for what he's doing. He's taking a stick, and poking at the rabid dog in the cage that is Islam.
Poke away, my friend!
Other Comments by STLstrike3
45. Comment #98202 by Fanusi Khiyal on December 13, 2007 at 8:52 am
Dr. Benway I appreciate your input, but I am afraid that your list is a little flawed.It's okay up to point 3, so to recap:
1. Someone like Fanusi will argue that the Koran and Hadith say X.
2. Another will say, "Yes, but many Muslims don't interpret X that way."
3. The word "interpret" may mean, "they don't behave consistently with" or "they offer an explanation that removes the apparent, problematic literal meaning."
Now, this is the way that it really proceeds:
4. In response, I typically cite the tradtional ways that Islam has been interpreted throughout human history (the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, as well as the Shia) which contain the historic practice of almost all Muslims.
5. The response is usually something along the lines of 'that's just history'.
6. I point out that the Umdat al-Salik was verified by Al-Azar, the Vatican of Sunni Islam just in 1992, and bring up the speaches of the Ayatollah Khomeni and his heirs in recent history.
7. Someone says 'that's not what the majority of Muslims believe.
8. I quote polls from Pew, Gallup, Al-Jazeera, and Al-Arabiya that show that, yes, that is what the majority, or at least a significant minority (20-30% plus believe).
And this is then often followed by:
9. The interlocuter wanders off in a sulk.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
46. Comment #98222 by robotaholic on December 13, 2007 at 9:47 am
banning the book of a death cult- sounds responsible but I guess we have to allow people the right to be in a hamfull death cult if they want Other Comments by robotaholic
47. Comment #98225 by Janus on December 13, 2007 at 9:56 am
Khiyal, do you know a website where (many of) the polls you mentioned are gathered? Everytime I get into a debate about Islam on one forum or another it takes me ages to find the relevant data. Other Comments by Janus
48. Comment #98231 by Fanusi Khiyal on December 13, 2007 at 10:11 am
Daniel Pipes's website is a good one, where there is alot of that kind of data. You can also look at the Pew polls located in Sam Harris's book.Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
49. Comment #98248 by Vaal on December 13, 2007 at 11:01 am
I do agree that the religious nutters have to be confronted, but probably best by satire and humour, as they have no answer to that, and it brings to light how ludicrous their beliefs are. I also believe that every time an apologist declares that it is OK according to his book to stone people, and murder people for their non beliefs, then they should be given short shrift, not given the nod by the cultural relativists.However, there are good Muslims that should be encouraged. I play squash with one of them, and even though he is fairly devout, he recognises that people are entitled to their beliefs. I have even got him to read the "God delusion". He, of course, comes out with the usual arguments you encounter every day on this site, but after a bit of debate, it normally comes down to "God of the gaps", "not my God", or the "I know I am right", even though I have no evidence, other than my holy book. Still, he is an intelligent guy, and the seed is growing..
Other Comments by Vaal
50. Comment #98742 by Jonathan Dore on December 14, 2007 at 7:18 am
Fanusi, I think banning the Koran, apart from being impossible in the age of the internet, would simply be counterproductive. When you ban something it makes you the oppressor, and you never want to be caught on the wrong side of that equation -- everything you wish to promote is undermined by association with the oppression (the little appeal that David Irving has is based on the fact that he can present himself as a "martyr" to an idea that "the authorities" are "afraid" to let people hear -- and once the argument is shifted in that direction he no longer has to defend his actual ideas). The second reason is that, by banning a text, and thus oppressing its adherents, you are giving it a dignity it does not deserve. The most fatal poison for religious pomposity is mockery: oppression only serves to puff it up.Other Comments by Jonathan Dore
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"...the stereo- type of scientists being scruffy nerds with rows of pens in their top pocket is just about as wicked as racist stereotypes."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
Donald R. Prothero
Why Darwin Matters
Michael Shermer
Read the 1st Chapter!
Conciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #97559 by Crossman on December 12, 2007 at 11:00 am
"Four months ago, he called for the Koran to be outlawed in the Netherlands."Bah. It's stuff like this that gets us labels like "secular fundamentalists". We mustn't be like this.
Other Comments by Crossman