The inside back-cover of Geert Wilders' anti-Islam book, "Marked for Death," says it all: "Expelled from Britain, banned from Indonesia, denounced by the UN Secretary General ... Wilders is unbowed and unapologetic."
After having read his book, another word to describe Wilders comes to mind: uninformed.
Wilders promises many things in his book, above all that, "we must speak the truth." Wilders does not fulfill his promises, however, and his disregard for truth is the most astounding. While one opinion editorial cannot possibly respond to an entire book, I illustrate below some of the more grotesque misrepresentations that Wilders proposes. Still, this article is not censorship; read his effort at your leisure.
Wilders' errors manifest in three manners. First, he misrepresents material secular facts. Next, he makes countless reference-less pejorative accusations against Prophet Muhammad and the Quran. Finally, Wilders repeatedly misrepresents Islamic history, again without references. Though at times he cites legitimate sources like Karen Armstrong and Pew Research, he largely avoids references altogether or actively references anti-Islam hate websites for his most important points. If someone applied Wilders approach to criticize Christianity, they would present KKK members as authentic Christians, Bible-bash with anti-Christian hate websites and fabricate data to show Christianity's alleged existential threat to humanity.
First, Wilders' inability to cite basic secular facts accurately indicates the unlikelihood that he can relate complex religious history and dogma properly. Wilders claims, "America -- unlike the Netherlands, Canada, [Europe] -- does not have hate speech laws, thanks to its First Amendment" (p. 25). This is patently false. While the First Amendment does protect offensive speech, it does not protect hate speech that is obscene, defamatory, incites to riots or fighting words. Likewise, the Supreme Court held in Virginia v. Black (2003) that cross burning with the intent to intimidate was hate speech devoid of First Amendment protection.
Wilders continues with numerous misrepresentations against Muhammad and the Quran. For example, he claims without reference that Muhammad instigated violence while in Mecca (p. 35-36). He ignores the fact that Muhammad specifically forbade Muslims to fight in Mecca, and they obeyed, instead escaping assassination and brutal persecution to Medina--some 240 miles away. Wilders further claims, again without reference, that in Medina, Muhammad established a "political dictatorship based on his Koranic revelations" (p. 36). Yet, he ignores the secular Charter of Medina that the Muslims and Jews of Medina both willingly signed and ratified; a Charter that ensured equal protection, universal religious freedom and secular governance.
Finally, Wilders describes, again without reference, the Battle of Badr as when Muhammad "defeated a Meccan escort" and "robbed and massacred" them. He ignores the fact that 313 men without adequate weaponry defended themselves a few miles outside of their homes in Medina against an army of 1,000 soldiers who traveled 240 miles to obliterate them. The winning Muslim army captured 70 POWs, and while the Arab custom for POWs was permanent slavery or death, the Muslims allowed each POW to purchase his freedom. Wilders further claims Muhammad broke a 10-year truce to march on Mecca with a "merciless army" and to "bring his theocracy" (p. 39-40). He ignores the fact that Muhammad marched only because the Meccans first broke the Treaty of Hudaybia with a pre-emptive attack. Even upon reaching Mecca, Muhammad forbade fighting provided the Meccans accept one condition--universal religious freedom. The army that Wilders describes as a "merciless" did not raise a single sword.
Each of the above examples is but the tip of the iceberg of Wilders' misrepresentations.
For those seeking authentic Islamic scholarship, no shortage of honest and objective research exists. Scholar Karen Armstrong, former UN President Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan, historian Michael Hart, and theologian Dr. Philip Jenkins are all great resources to consider.
I sympathize with Wilders' desire to eradicate extremism, bigotry, violence, hatred and fascism. I loathe that he receives death threats from those claiming to be Muslim, and look forward to a day when he can live without such concerns. My advice to him, however, is that he should adhere to truth and justice, rather than perpetuate the very extremism he claims to fight. He has already been expelled from several countries due to his antics. And by the looks of how his poll numbers are dropping, he is also being expelled from many free and pluralistic minds.
Follow Qasim Rashid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MuslimIQ
8:60 “And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides…”
He wants to highlight the word “threaten” to indicate that Islam equals terrorism, which is how many haters alike Wilders and ignorant people want to label Islam.
Firstly, what he is denouncing Islam for, is something that is done by all great and mighty nations.
The US and NATO powers and Israel China and India produce lethal weapons, atomic bombs, planes, submarines and so on, to defend themselves and to threaten their enemies lest anyone attack them.
This is what is meant in this verse. The adversaries who occupy Muslim lands could not have dared to do so except when the Muslims ceased to implement this verse.
The most recent example of that is Iraq, where they put pressure on the government to destroy their weapons and missiles, then when that had been done and confirmed, they invaded and occupied the land, and mistreated its people.
Secondly, understanding the context of the verse properly will prove wrong the label of terrorism that he wants to apply to Islam, as he and his gang understand it.
8:61 “But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and trust in Allah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower”
The Bottom Line is PEACE
mohammed was a caravan bandit and a bloodthirsty individual, apart from other flaws. This is recorded by people like Ibn Ishaq. So let us not be so defensive.
Can you please provide reference of your assertions from sahih hadiths of Bukhari or Muslim? If Mohammed freed captured soldiers what happened to Jews of banu Khyabbar?
Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists (which includes Christians), invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them" and also Bukhari (60:40) - "...:And fight them till there is no more affliction (i.e. no more worshiping of others along with Allah)." 'Affliction' of Muslims is explicitly defined here being a condition in which others worship a different god other than Allah. Muslims are commanded to use violence to 'rectify' the situation.
I dont wish to make it difficult for you sir by quoting where it is permitted make captured women slaves.
thank you
When you have a nation like Israel who shuns international law and decisions (or the USA), you get foreigners abroad tarred with the same brush. It happens, even though it's wrong. Saudi Arabia, where Mecca and Medina are today, isn't going to let me in there either, as a Christian, and Jews left there long ago.
1) Paying special Tax - this is called racism, bigotry or apartheid. In addition to tax the non muslim per Sharia were not allowed to be witness against muslims. You can check the Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki or Hanbali schools on witness of non muslims.
2) treatment of captured people by Islamic Army's: You say that it is like geenva convention. Can you please point out where in Geneva convention victors are allowed to kill captured soldiers, keep woman in slavery or marry captured woman. All of this ie is keeping captured people as slaves and captured women as sex slaves is permitted in sharia. Please let me know if you want references from sharia as there is a word limit. Chapter 24, 33 and 4 permit and sanction slavery.
3) Christians and jews did not leave Saudi Arabia they were expelled on the command of Mohammed. Please understand that there is a big difference between expulsion and leaving by free will. I can give you the reference of the hadith which outlines Mohammed command to expel Reference from Al tabari Tabari VIII:130 "The Messenger said during his final illness, 'Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.' Umar investigated the matter, then sent to the Jews, saying: 'Allah has given permission for you to be expelled; for I have received word that the Prophet said that two religions cannot coexist in Arabia."
Thank you kindly
Do not add words to the hadith to try to make your point. The hadith does NOT say "which includes Christians". Those are your words. Christians are of the People of the Book, along with the Jews. They are recongnized monotheists who worship the same God, whom we Muslims call "Allah" (swt). Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all Abrahamic, monotheistic faiths.
As for forced conversions, Allah (swt) tells us: “So if they dispute with you, say ‘I have submitted my whole self to Allah, and so have those who follow me.’ And say to the People of the Scripture and to the unlearned: ‘Do you also submit yourselves?’ If they do, then they are on right guidance. But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in Allah’s sight are all of His servants.” [Sûrah Âli `Imrân: 20]
To come to a full understanding of Islam, you must study both the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and understand the concept of abrogation and the chronology of (and reason for) certain revelations. I urge you to talk to a local Imam about these concerns you raise. Allahu 'alam.
You do selective qouting of the 3rd Surah: the complete verses are:3:19 Lo! religion with Allah (is) the Surrender (to His Will and Guidance). Those who (formerly) received the Scripture differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of Allah (will find that) lo! Allah is swift at reckoning.
3:20 And if they argue with thee, (O Muhammad), say: I have surrendered my purpose to Allah and (so have) those who follow me. And say unto those who have received the Scripture and those who read not: Have ye (too) surrendered ? If they surrender, then truly they are rightly guided, and if they turn away, then it is thy duty only to convey the message (unto them). Allah is Seer of (His) bondmen.
3:21 Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slay the prophets wrongfully, and slay those of mankind who enjoin equity: promise them a painful doom.
and sir 3:28 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.
Thank you
For example, you state that Muhammed's mission in taking Mecca was universal religious freedom? I mean, that is something that people will of course find great and since you point it out it seems that you think universal religious freedom is a great and the opposite is bad. Then how do you square the circle that after taking Mecca he destroy all the other idols Kaaba and claims it only for his and after consolidating power forbidding all religions except those of the Abrahamic god, even banning all other religions including them from even entering Mecca?
Seems hypocritical of you to call out the Meccas as bad and Muhammed good in light of those actions. The Meccans it would seem were relatively tolerant (the Kaaba contained religious icons from all over Arabia to include Christian statues to Pagan ones) and disliked Muhammed because he was insulting the other peoples gods. I agree that is still not an excuse to oppress him, but them you excuse Muhammed for doing even worst.
Just seem like bias
I know, out of context. But still...seems like vengefulness to me. Plus the killing thing.
I have read that quotation in the Quran also but it is a commandment only during the war, not when you see them in daily life.
Can you prove from history (in Muhammad's era) where any Jew or Christian or Pegan was ever murdered due to this quotation? None to my knowledge.
The facts recorded in history state that "It is the only peaceful take over of a previously tyrant army (who persecuted him & his followers for 13 years) without a single murder". Is this called a "merciless army"?
Mr. Wilder has a right to express his opinions but at least he should be factual about them... I also do not agree with any Muslim's argument to murder him because of his opinions. This is contrary to the teachings of Islam. No murder of anyone is allowed under any circumstances except during war or when court sentences a death penalty to a criminal.
===========
Karen Armstrong? See-no-evil-Armstrong? Whitewash Karen?
Anti-Islam hate websites = where there is factual information about Islam that a Muslim would get into trouble for repeating.
"America -- unlike the Netherlands, Canada, [Europe] -- does not have hate speech laws, thanks to its First Amendment"
==============
Fact: America does not have hate speech laws like those in the named countries.
; a Charter that ensured equal protection, universal religious freedom and secular governance.
=============
Would that be the equal protection, universal religious freedom and secular governance that resulted in the ethnic cleansing of all but Muslims from the Arabian peninsula?
Shortly after 622 CE, the ethnic cleansing of the Arabian Peninsula was put in motion by Mohammed. Since then, the more observant an Islamic country is, the more complete the religious cleansing is.
“It is He Who has sent His messenger with guidance and the religion of truth so that He dominates it over all other religions, even though the polytheists may dislike it” (Qur’an; 61:9)
"I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim."
“You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle”
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4363
That's a bit ironic, given that this is precisely what the early Christian church did to non-conformists.
So regardless of the conclusions the author drew from reading Wilders' book, I applaud him for not only making the effort of reading it, but furthermore promoting freedom of expression as well as condemning the many death threats Wilders keeps getting.
Having said that, I don't necessarily agree with everything Wilders says/writes, but I do think he makes some pretty strong points about the constantly growing influence of Islam on Western liberties. The mere fact that people such as Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Molly Norris or Geert Wilders have to live hidden away under police protection despite living in the West is testimony to the seriousness the problem.
Or, alternatively, the rest of us have better things to do. You can read The Qur'an (or indeed, for that matter, the Bible) in English is you want - you don't need to know Arabic or Greek.
I consider this line of argumentation nonsensical, of course. There are no ideas that can only be expressed in one language. If it were so, the total number of Muslims would be automatically reduced by the number of those who cannot speak Arabic.
And there is a majority view in Islam that one should learn the Koran in Arabic. Period. Lack of education isn't a sin, but education is wonderful. The Koran is dictated by God, like a poem, so it can be memorized like a poem, and frequently is. No literacy required.
The Prophet Mohammed did not have enough revelations to form a community, and instead turned to the Torah as the basis for his new community. One of the reasons that the Jews and Muslims clashed was over his interpretations of the Torah, which differed to those of the Talmud.
There are references to the Torah in the Qur'an, for example:
5:45: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth (and the benefits of not doing so)
29:28: Sodom and Gomorrah
And lots of stories from the Bible (with some key differences)
Sahih Bukhari 6:79:
"Sahih Bukhari :: 60 : 6 : 79
Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh))
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Umar
http://www.hadithexplorer.org/hadith/hadith/86816
The Jews brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from among them who had committed illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet said to them, "How do you usually punish the one amongst you who has committed illegal sexual intercourse?" They replied, "We blacken their faces with coal and beat them," He said, "Don't you find the order of Ar-Rajm (i.e. stoning to death) in the Torah?" They replied, "We do not find anything in it." 'Abdullah bin Salam (after hearing this conversation) said to them. "You have told a lie! Bring here the Torah and recite it if you are truthful." (So the Jews brought the Torah)...
The Prophet's decision was crass - he was no rabbi, and should have humbly accepted the views of the rabbis involved. The report of the result is particularly sad.
And yet Saudi translations of Qur'an 24:2 add stoning to death to the text. Pathetic
requires that you should make its teachings or its holy
scripture the anvil by which to judge it, otherwise
everyone would accuse every other faith willy-nilly.
The stand of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community is that
the teaching of the Holy Qur’an promotes peace.
visit alislam.org for information on the true Islam.