Geert Wilders and one of his colleagues in parliament, Martin Bosma, have written an op-ed article in one of Holland’s two most important newspapers, de Volkskrant (which could be compared with the New York Times). I think it’s an excellent article, which makes clear once again how close his views are to yours on some essential topics. Their article was prompted in response to an attack on them by a secular Jewish media personality, Harry de Winter, who paid for an advertisement on the frontpage of the Volkskrant earlier this week in which he equated Wilders’ anti-Islamic position with anti-Semitism.
I have translated the entire article for you and have bolded the essential passages:
Islam is the problem, not the Muslims
by Geert Wilders and Martin Bosma
de Volkskrant, March 21, 2008
“Islam is a political ideology that strives for world domination and threatens the West, according to Geert Wilders and Martin Bosma.”
Socialist Party-sympathizer Harry de Winter made millions with the TV-gameshow “Lingo.” The lingo that he dumped on the front page of de Volkskrant is truly despicable. Actually he mostly advertized his own cluelessness.
It wouldn’t be important to respond to this, were it not that his reasoning is characteristic of the progressive elites. What de Winter writes is also the opinion of the left-wing elite in Amsterdam, in the media in Hilversum and in the Binnenhof [i.e. the Dutch “Beltway”] in the Hague.
At least—this is their public opinion. We are convinced that the abovementioned really do feel that there there is something fundamentally wrong with Islam. That this so-called religion is a threat. But politically-correct groupthink or denial of reality prevents them from calling a spade a spade.
To end their internal confusion, the left-wing leaders leaders Geert Mak, Clairy Polak, and Doekle Terpstra [respectively, a well-known writer, a media personality and a labor leader, all of whom are critical of Wilders] propose comparisons that are supposed to define the problems are by generalizing them. “Every religion has its problems,” or “in the olden times Dutch women also wore veils” or “the Crusades were really bad too” or “Staphorst!” [i.e. the name of a Dutch town were a very orthodox and old-fashioned form of Dutch Protestantism is dominant].
All fallacies that keep us away from reality: Islam is unique. It cannot be compared and certainly not understood with Western concepts. If we don’t understand that, a dark future awaits us.
Talking about Islam as a religion is extremely dangerous. It makes Islam unassailable—it prevents us from looking the danger into its eyes.
Of course Islam has certain religious characteristics (a supreme being, an afterlife etc.) but the goals of Islam are here on Earth: the establishment of sharia law, world domination, jihad, dhimmitude (repression of unbelievers), apartheid against women and the repression and killing of non-Muslims. Islam is all-encompassing: from estate law to criminal law. That is why it is more a political ideology than a religion.
The Left has not always been blind. Jacques de Kadt (a great thinker who was nevertheless a member of the Labor Party) called national socialism in 1939 the new Islam. But these days the progressive elite can only seek escape in silly comparisons.
For instances that skull-caps could be compared to veils. That ignores the imperialistic character of Islam. Where every prayer room, every mosque, every veil or burial place is a monument of triumph; a piece of terriory that will never be given up to the inferior kaffir.
What is really sick is comparing the fate of the Jews in the Holocaust with the broad popular support against Islamification. The Shoah is a low point in history: the industrial destruction of a people. Any comparison hollows out that unique character of the Shoah and reduces the memory of the six million dead to a cheap ploy in a debate.
The third silly comparison is that the Harry de Winters of this world keep quoting other holy books that also contain dubious passages. Like: “look at this in Leviticus.”
All those pseudo-intellectuals refuse to see this harsh truth: that the Koran is the very literal word of Allah, and come to this world through Mohammed. Plus the fact that Mohammed is the perfect man. Those two facts make it impossible for a true Muslim ever to distance himself from the Koran or the despicable acts of Mohammed.
We should count ourselves lucky that many Muslims don’t know their own ideology very well. For example because they don’t speak Arabic or don’t read the Koran. That is (for the time being!) in our advantage and gives us the time to take counter measurers. While we still can. It is also important to make a distinction between Islam and Muslims. Our problem is with the ideology not the people.
Soon the movie “Fitna” will be launched. Our movie isn’t so much about Muslims but about the Koran and Islam. The Islamic ideology has as its highest goal to destroy is what is most dear to us: our liberty.
The “well-thinking” part of the nation refuses to be proud of what our ancestors have built up and for which they have made great sacrifices. Their moral relativism has gone so far that they are prepared to wager with our very existence to prove that all cultures are equal or that Islam is “just” another religion. Democracy or sharia: it doesn’t matter to them. If you disagree, you discriminate and are a racist.
Fitna is the last warning to the West. Either we choose to bequeath our liberty to the children of the Netherlands or we allow our liberty to sink away in the multicultural morass and allow the further growth of Islamic ideology. This may not be a lingo popular with the “well-thinking” elites. But popularity among them has never been our aim. We have a different responsibility.
The fight for freedom has only just begun.
Geert Wilders leads the Party of Freedom in Dutch parliament; Martin Bosma is an MP for the same party.
The Danish tv host (in the first interview) makes a peculiarly wicked (though very common these days) argument on responsibility transfer, which can be summarized as follows:
If A threatens to do x unless B does y, A has ipso facto transferred to B all of A’s responsibility (and blame) for A’s doing x.
So, if Islamists threaten to burn and kill unless Wilders refuses to show Fitna, Islamists have ipso facto transferred to Wilders all the responsibility (and blame) for their burning and killing.
I wonder what the Danish journalist would say if the argument were put in a reversed form:
If Wilders threatens to set fire to all the copies of the Koran he lays his eyes on, unless the State bans the book, has Wilders successfully transferred to the State all the responsibility (and blame) for his setting fire to all the copies of the Koran he has layed his eyes on?