Geert Wilders, Coward.

The principles of The Party of Hate and Cowardice™ extend beyond the borders of the U.S., including various countries in Europe. The Islamophobic Dutch politician Geert Wilders has recently shown us his true color (yellow). For those not familiar with Wilders or his story, he's the head of the Dutch Freedom Party PVV, which holds nine seats out of 150 (6%) in the second chamber of the Dutch parliament (Tweede Kamer). Like other tiny extremist political parties, Wilders is trying to exploit an incident to raise publicity for himself and his party through demonization of "the other," this time through attacks on the Holy Qur'an.

On August 8th, Expatica reported that Wilders proposed to ban the Qur'an in the Netherlands; the Qur'an could only be used as "an object of study," but to own or use the Qur'an in a masjid or the home would be "punishable." (This, despite the fact that Adolph Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" which, while banned from being sold in the Netherlands, is freely available to read in some libraries and is legal for private citizens to own.)

Wilders hopes that the ban "will send a signal to radical Muslims who use the Koran to justify violence. He cited the 'attackers' of Ehsan Jami as an example. They assaulted the chairman of the committee for ex-Muslims last Saturday – presumably because of his controversial statements on Islam. Wilders says that the perpetrators found an excuse for using violence against Jami in the Koran."

Wilders realizes, of course, that his proposal would never pass: "Unfortunately our proposals are often rejected with a vote of 141 against 9. But if I were to let myself become dissuaded by that then I would be better off just stopping my efforts. This book incites hate and murder, and therefore does not fit in with our rule of law. If Muslims want to participate, they must distance themselves from the Koran. I know that is asking a great deal, but we have to stop making concessions."

(This is not the first time Wilders has spoken against the Qur'an, either. Earlier this year, Wilders had stated that Muslims who want to stay in the Netherlands should tear out and discard half the Koran. These comments led to commotion both in the Netherlands and abroad. Saudi Arabia and Iran made their displeasure at the statement clear.)

The Dutch government swiftly rejected Wilders' proposal. On August 9th, the government said Wilders' comments were damaging to integration.

The cabinet and Parliament rejected Wilders' call. "It must be entirely clear that the cabinet has no intention of banning the Koran in the Netherlands and that it will never consider this in future," said Integration Minister Ella Vogelaar. She said Wilders' comments were "damaging to Dutch social relations because he is portraying one population group in a bad light and could drive even more of a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. This urging is insulting to the large majority of Muslims."

Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen has also openly distanced himself from Wilders' statements. He thinks that the PVV leader oversteps "the bounds of what is decent." Both freedom of religion and freedom of expression are foundations of the Dutch constitutional state, Verhagen said. Minister Verhagen sent a letter in which the cabinet distances itself from Wilders' comments to the Dutch embassies abroad on Wednesday, in case they are questioned about the matter.

Liberal VVD MP Halbe Zijlstra thinks that "Wilders has lost his way." "He claims to stand up for Dutch standards and values, but at the same time he puts one of these values out with the rubbish: the freedom of religion." Christian democrat CDA MP Madeleine van Toorenburg also said Wilders' disregard for this freedom was remarkable.

Religious representatives also condemned Wilders:

Representatives of Dutch Muslim organizations responded stoically to Wilders' most recent attack on their religion. Chairman of the Dutch Muslim Council Abdeljamid Khairoun: "Wilders suffers from a religious syndrome. He has said repeatedly that the Koran is a bad book. I expect he will also ask for a ban on the Torah and the Bible." Khairoun felt that Wilders had pulled passages from the Koran out of context.

Secretary of the Advisory Body on Muslims and the State (CMO) Nasr Joemman says Wilders is primarily trying to garner more support. Joemman suspects that the PVV leader is trying with his rhetoric to push Muslim youth to become more radical so that he can take a stand against them.

Cardinal Ad Simonis said the proposal to ban the Koran was "too ridiculous for words." "Just the idea! Every word that is wasted on proposals like this is one too many."

Still, the Dutch Muslim Council extended its invitation again to Wilders and his party to "take part in a 'constructive dialogue' aimed at putting an end to the polarization and feelings of fear in Dutch society."

The council understands the concerns of Wilders and the many Dutch who voted for his party, but feel that the PVV leader cannot blame the Koran for the violent actions of individuals or groups.

And this is where Wilders shows himself to be the gutless coward. Eleven days after Expatica reported the invitation made by the Dutch Muslim Council, Wilders has refused to engage in any dialogue with the group out of hand.

The PVV leader said in the AD on Saturday that he was not interested in a talk with the organization. "I will refrain from doing that not because I don't want dialogue, but because a debate on this is not possible. It is pointless," says Wilders. The Muslim Council has proposed a "constructive dialogue" to combat polarization and feelings of fear in society.

Wilders contests in the AD that he is sowing hate. "That is what the Koran does. It is a fascist book. That is not a book we should have here. Maybe if you take all the harmful verses out of it, but then there wouldn't be much left. Then the Koran would be about as thick as a comic book."

What are you afraid of, Geert? Are you scared to talk to Muslims? Can't you defend your position to those people whom you would adversely affect the most?

No, I guess not.

Geert Wilders, coward.


Update: Daniel Pipes argues against Wilders' proposal to ban the Qur'an. Shocking, ain't it? Of course, Pipes remains a goof, but it's a step in the right direction. HT: Islamophobia Watch

Be Muslim - But Only in Moderation

"Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: 'The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance.' Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah." (2:120)

2:135 "They say: 'Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation).' Say thou: 'Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with Allah.'" (2:135)


Be Muslim - But Only in Moderation
By: Yasmin Mogahed
Iviews

In his first 2004 presidential debate, Senator John Kerry began the night in the flavor-of-the-day. Answering his first question, Kerry explained that America needed to isolate the "radical Islamic Muslims."

"I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by ... beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America."

At first, the statement sounded redundant-even uneducated. A Muslim is, by definition, a follower of Islam, and is therefore, by definition, "Islamic." Saying "Islamic Muslims" was a lot like saying "American Americans."

So was Kerry just being repetitive? Or was his statement perhaps more telling that even he realized? Are all Muslims "Islamic"? Well, the truth is - no. Not the good ones, at least.

More and more the underlying assumption seems to be that Islam is the problem. If Islam, as a faith, is in essence radical, the less "Islamic" something is the better. And thus a 'moderate Muslim' - the much coveted title - is only moderately Muslim and therefore only moderately bad. Saying this would be like telling someone to only be 'moderately black' so as not to be too violent.

Conversely, a Muslim who is too "Islamic" is then by definition "radical" - a "radical Islamic Muslim" - and must be dealt with (isolated).

In fact, Mona Mayfield understood these rules well when she defended her husband - wrongfully accused of participating in the Spain bombing.

"We have a Bible in the house. He's not a fundamentalist - he thought it was something different and very unique," Mayfield told the associated press of her husband's conversion to Islam.

To prove his innocence, Mayfield tried to downplay her husband's commitment to Islam. She even felt the need to justify his conversion - as if that were his crime.

Mosque administrator Shahriar Ahmed took a similar approach to defend Mayfield. "He was seen as a moderate," Ahmed told reporters. "Mayfield showed up for the Friday ritual of shedding his shoes, washing his bare feet and sitting on the carpets to hear services. He did not, as some devout Muslims do, pray five times a day at the mosque."

The implication here is that Brandon Mayfield's guilt or innocence was in some way related to how many times he prayed at the mosque. Ahmed even went on to assert, "He was on the less religious side if anything."

These 'less religious' icons of what an 'acceptable' Muslim should look like can be found all over the media. Irshad Manji, media entrepreneur and author of "The Trouble with Islam," is one of the most celebrated of these icons. Manji is widely published and has appeared in all the top media outlets. She even received Oprah's Chutzpah Award for "gustiness."

Although Manji refers to herself as a "Muslim refusenik", the media refers to her as the model of a "practicing Muslim". Daniel Pipes, a board member of the United States Institute of Peace, calls her a "courageous, moderate, modern Muslim." But interestingly, Manji's ideas have less to do with Islam than Pipes' ideas have to do with peace. A Washington Post article describes Manji's epiphany about prayer-the cornerstone of the Islamic faith:

"Instead, she said, she began praying on her own. After washing her feet, arms and face, she would sit on a velvet rug and turn toward Mecca. Eventually, she stopped this as well, because she did not want to fall 'into mindless submission and habitual submissiveness.'"

Manji is welcome to her opinion about this practice of 1.5 billion people worldwide. She is also welcome to abandon any and all of these practices. But Manji is not simply depicted as an insignificant woman who decided not to pray. Her personal decision to abandon central tenants of her faith - so long as that faith is Islam - is portrayed as a fight for freedom. A fight against tyranny. She is 'courageous' and 'gutsy', a model for other not-too-Islamic Muslims to follow.

Making this the model is like asking someone not to be 'too black' or 'too Jewish' as if these were in essence bad or violent and anyone who struggled only to be 'moderately black' or 'moderately Jewish' was a freedom fighter.

For example, Manji told the Washington Post, "The violence is going to happen, then why not risk it happening for the sake of freedom?"

Yes. Freedom is good. Manji may have said it better. Kerry may have said it subtler. But a business management professor at California's Imperial Valley College said it truer: "The only way to end Islamic terrorism is to eliminate the Islamic religion."

But regardless of how you say it, one thing is for sure: when it comes to Islam these days - less is definitely more.


Yasmin Mogahed received a B.S. in psychology from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. She is currently a graduate student in Journalism/Mass Communications at the University of Wisconsin - Madison and working as a free lance writer.

Intern Daniel Pipes

Two Letters to the Editor in the Dallas-Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Sunday, Jan. 23, 2005). Good letters, guys!


I read Daniel Pipes' Dec. 30 commentary supporting the internment of people who are threats to the American way of life, and I was especially taken by his effort to justify internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

At first, I didn't think much of his idea. But then I read the letters on his commentary, particularly those by R.H. Gruy and Harold Moore, who supported Pipes' proposal. (See Jan. 7 letters, "A debate on internment.")

I then realized that my objection to the idea of interning threats to America was based entirely on how Pipes proposed it, merely as an idea for discussion. Once I began to apply the idea to some real threats to America, it became clear how good it really is.

So in the interest of making the idea less theoretical and more concrete, let me provide a short, initial list of who should immediately be interned in order to protect the rest of us:

• Daniel Pipes.
• Gruy and Moore.
• The editor who authorized publishing Pipes' commentary.

All of these people apparently support the arbitrary and indefinite internment of people who are presumed to be threats to America, so I'm sure that we need only write to them and tell them where to report. It should be easy to administer, and America would be much safer without them on the streets.

As I say, the idea becomes much more interesting once some real people are considered.

Richard Brewer
Fort Worth

----

A plaque in front of the Manzanar camp (California Registered Historical Landmark No. 850) reads as follows:

"In the early part of WWII, 110,000 persons of Japanese ancestry were interned in relocation centers by Executive Order No. 9066, issued February 19, 1942. Manzanar was the first of ten such concentration camps. It was bounded by barbed wire and guard towers, confining 10,000 persons, the majority being American citizens. May the injustices and humiliation suffered here as a result of hysteria, racism and economic exploitation never emerge again."

Anyone who thinks that Daniel Pipes has a legitimate point of view should read firsthand accounts written by Japanese-Americans about their experiences of internment in the United States. And given that Pipes is talking about "registering" people based on religious affiliation, Night by Elie Wiesel is also a must-read.

Unless we safeguard the liberties of all our citizens, the Pledge of Allegiance and the Declaration of Independence mean about as much as a plastic flag bumper sticker.

Jaime Moore
Keller