Video thanks to Pamela, who has the rest on video here.
Here is the text of Wilders's speech:
Speech Geert Wilders MP / Columbia University New York, October 21, 2009Ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege and a great honour for me to speak at this fine academic institution, which gave the world so many Nobel Prize winners. As a Dutchman, I am proud that your first Nobel laureate, in 1906, was of Dutch descent: The youngest President of the United States: Theodore Roosevelt.
I thank Columbia University for inviting me, and I also thank the US border police for allowing me to enter this great country of democracy, liberty and free speech.
Ladies and gentlemen, today, the dearest of our many liberties is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to fight for.
I would not qualify myself as a free man. 5 years ago I lost my personal freedom. Since then I am under 24-hour police protection. In addition some people tried to rob my freedom of speech: A Dutch Islamic organization tried to stop the appearance of my documentary 'Fitna'. Because of 'Fitna' the most radical Dutch imam claimed 55.000 Euros in compensation for his hurt feelings. The State of Jordan is possibly going to issue a request for my extradition, to stand trial in Amman. I have been charged in France.
In my own country, the Netherlands, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal overruled the decision of the Dutch public prosecutor not to prosecute me. So, now I have to stand trial in my own country, next January.
But, it is not about me. I am not the only European who fights for freedom of speech, there are so many more: The Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard made a Muhammad-cartoon and all of a sudden we were in the middle of the so called 'Danish cartoon crisis'. The Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her book 'The Rage and the Pride'. An Austrian politician, Susanne Winter, was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence because she spoke bluntly about the prophet Muhammad. The Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot was arrested by 10 police men because of his drawings. And the Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam by a radical Muslim.
Last February, I was invited by 2 brave members of the British House of Lords - Lord Malcom Pearson and Baroness Caroline Cox - to show 'Fitna' in the British Parliament. But upon my arrival at Heathrow airport I was denied entry into the UK, on grounds that I would threaten community harmony and therefore public security.
Of course that was a ridiculous and politically motivated claim by the UK government. I was allowed to show 'Fitna' and deliver a speech in the US Senate, in New York, in Florida, in California, in Copenhagen, in Rome, in Jerusalem and next month in the Senate of the Czech Republic. But the British government refused my entrance into the UK, a fellow EU-country. Well, I think it was a splendid American idea, back in the 18th century, to kick the British out.Last week, my appeal against the refusal by the British government, took place in London; and I won. Freedom finally prevailed! A UK Court ruled that the decision of the British Home Secretary to ban me was unjust, illegal and a violation of freedom of speech. Fortunately the British judges are a lot wiser than the British government. So, last Friday I went to London and met with my friends Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox and we agreed to show 'Fitna' in the House of Lords, next March.
But let me tell you what also happened during our press conference. A Muslim mob demonstrated outside, shouting: "Shariah for the Netherlands", "Enemy of Islam Geert Wilders deserves capital punishment", "Freedom go to hell" and "Islam will dominate the world". Welcome to Europe today!
You can see all this for yourself on YouTube. This is exactly what we are fighting against. And it gets even worse. A few days ago British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported that an Islamic group indeed launched a campaign to impose shariah law in Britain, they will meet later this month in London for a procession to demand the full implementation of shariah law.
Before I want to speak about Islam, I first would like to say this: I have nothing against Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims in our Western countries are law abiding people, who want to live a peaceful life. I know that. Therefore, I make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam.
What is happening in Europe should not come as a surprise. The reality is that where Islam roots, free speech dies. There is not a single Islamic country in het world where people are really totally free to say what they think. Ever since the so called prophet Muhammad ordered his men to kill the poet Asma bint Marwan, the brave woman who warned her people against this murderous cult, radical Muslims think they have a license to kill anyone, who dares to criticize Muhammad's word or actions. Free speech is Islam's enemy. Islam is a threat to the Europe of Socrates, Voltaire and Galileo.
As I said, there are many moderate Muslims. But there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. Islam's heart lies in the Koran. The Koran is an evil book that calls for violence and murder - Sura 4, Verse 89 and Sura 47, Verse 4 -, terrorism - Sura 8, Verse 60 - and war - Sura 8, Verse 39. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs - Sura 2, Verse 65 / Sura 5, Verse 60 and Sura 7, Verse 166. It calls non-Muslims liars, miscreants, enemies, ignorant, unclean, wicked, evil, the worst of creatures and the vilest of animals.
The problem is that the provisions in the Koran are not restricted to time or place. Rather, they apply to all Muslims, from all times. Apart from the Koran, there is also the life of Muhammad, who fought in dozens of wars, who spread Islam with the sword, sold imprisoned women and children as slaves, who was in the habit of decapitating Jews and who married and consummated the young girl Aisha before she was ten years of age. The problem is that, to many `Muslims, Muhammad is 'the perfect man', whose life is the model to follow. But the facts show that the so called Prophet was not a perfect man but a murderer and a pedophile. And inspired by him jihadists with the promise of a carnal paradise slaughtered innocent people in Washington, New York, Madrid, London, Amsterdam, Bali and Mumbai.
Ladies and gentlemen, some time ago an interview was held in France with the French Muslim student Mohamed Sabaoui, who said the following, and I quote: "Your laws do not coincide with the Koran, Muslims can only be ruled by shariah law", and "we will declare the town of Roubaix an independent Muslim enclave and impose shariah law upon all its citizens, and "we will be your Trojan Horse, we will rule, Allah Akbar". End of quote.
Make no mistake: Islam has always attempted to conquer Europe. Spain fell in the 8th century. Constantinople fell in the 15th century. Vienna and Poland were threatened, and now, in the 21st century, Islam is trying again. This time not with military armies, but through migration and demography.For the first time in world history there are dozens of millions of Muslims living outside the Dar al-Islam, the Islamic world. Europe now has more than 50 million Muslims. It is expected that one fifth of the population of the European Union will be Muslim within 40 years.
In 1974 no one took the Algerian President Boumédienne all too serious when he said to the UN general assembly: "One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women". End of quote.
And Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: "There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent and the number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted to Islam. Europe will one day be a Muslim continent". End of quote.
Indeed Gaddafi is telling the truth here, through the Islamic concept of migration - called Al Hijra - Europe is in the process of becoming Eurabia. In Europe churches are emptying out, whereas mosques are shooting up like mushrooms. Muhammad is the most popular name among boys in many European cities. Medieval phenomena as burkas, honor killings and female genital mutilation are becoming more and more prevalent.
In the UK, by now 85 shariah law courts are active, the same country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust, and a minister is pleading to change the Red Cross logo, because it might offend Muslims. In Austria, history teachers avoid teaching on the Austrian wars against the Islamic invaders. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire. In Norway, children are made to sing Islamic songs as "Allah Akbar" and "Little Muslim, do you pray?" In Belgium, a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II.
The rise of Islam also means the rise of shariah law in our judicial systems. In Europe we have it all: Shariah testaments, shariah mortgages, shariah schools, shariah banks, as I said in the UK there are even 85 shariah courts. Islam regards shariah law to be above all man-made laws, including our constitutions. As you know, shariah law covers all areas of life, from religion, hygiene and dietary laws, to dress codes, family and social life and from finance and politics to the unity of Islam with the state. Shariah law does not recognize free speech and freedom of religion.
According to shariah law, killing apostates is a 'virtue', but the consumption of alcohol is a crime. The introduction of shariah law elements in our societies creates a system of legal apartheid. Shariah law systematically discriminates groups of people. I never understood why the leftish and liberal politicians are ignoring all this. Historically they were the ones fighting for the rights of women, gays, non-believers and others. All groups that would be the first to pay a high price if and when Islamic values would become dominant. Their silence is frightening. Now, I am fighting their fight. I fight to protect those groups. I fight against the Islamization of our societies and therefore for the protection of the rights of women, homosexuals, Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers and kafirs: the non-Muslims. I want to protect these victims for shariah law. And we all should. If we ignore the problem it will not go away, if we don't act now, shariah will be implemented more en more, slowly but gradually and that would mean the end of freedom of speech and democracy in Europe. This is what is at stake, nothing less than our freedom and democracy.
And please make no mistake: Islam is also coming for America. Last July, during a conference in Chicago, organised by Hizb-Ut-Tahrir, the international movement aiming to create an Islamic state under shariah law across the world, the American imam Jaleel Abdul Adil promised to fight "until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt". When asked: "Would you get rid of the United States Constitution for shariah?" he answered: "Yes, The Constitution would be gone".
America is facing a 'stealth Jihad', the Islamic' attempt to introduce Shariah law bit by bit. Allow me to give you a few examples of Islamization in the United States: Muslim taxi drivers at Minneapolis airport refused over 5,000 passengers because they were carrying alcohol; Muslim students are demanding separate campus housing; Muslim women are demanding separate hours in gyms and swimming pools; schools are banning Halloween and Christmas celebrations - indeed, schools are taking pork off their cafeteria menus to avoid offending Muslim students. Ladies and gentlemen, be aware that this is only the beginning. If things continue like this, you will have the same problems as we are currently faced with in Europe.
It is my opinion that Islam is more an ideology than a religion. To be precise, Islam is a political, totalitarian ideology, with worldwide aspirations, just like communism and fascism, because like those ideologies Islam does not intend to assimilate in our societies but wants to dominate and submit us all. In Islam there is no room for anything but Islam. I think the great Winston Churchill was fully right when he, in his book The Second World War, called Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf the new Koran of faith and war.But, ladies and gentlemen, Islam is not the only problem. There is a second problem, a problem that is called cultural relativism. Our entire Western elite, whether they are politicians, journalists or judges, has lost its way. Their sense of reality has vanished. Those cultural relativists believe that all cultures are equal. They think that the Islamic culture is equal to our culture which is based on Christianity, Judaism and Humanism. Our culture adheres to freedom, human rights and the equality between men and women and not to violence and hatred.
To the cultural relativists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far better than the Islamic culture. And we should be proud of that and defend it. Unlike most countries where the Islamic culture is dominant, we have a rule of law, a democracy, a functioning parliament, freedom of speech and a constitution that protects us against the government.
It is clear that not everyone sees the danger. I quote a prominent American, who recently won a Nobel Prize: "Throughout history, Islam had demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance", and "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism, it is an important part of promoting peace", and "We celebrate a great religion, and its commitment to justice and progress". End of quote. I strongly have to disagree with this assessment. Islam has nothing in common with tolerance or peace or justice!
President Obama also celebrated the fact that when the first Muslim-American was elected to Congress, he took the oath using the same Koran that one of the Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library. It is interesting to know that Thomas Jefferson in 1801 was about to wage war against the Islamic 'Barbary' states of Northern Africa to stop the pillaging of ships and enslavement of more than a million Christians.
The ambassador of these Muslim nations told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that Muslims find the justification for their slaughter and enslavement of kafir in the Koran. Now I ask you, dear friends, could it be that Thomas Jefferson did not keep a copy of the Koran because he admired Islam but because he wanted to understand the ruthless nature of his enemies?
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in democracy, I believe in the American people and the choices it makes, and normally, as a politician from Holland, I would never judge your President. But these remarks of President Obama, do not only affect America, but Europe too. I am afraid that President Obama's remarks could be a turning point in history. I fear that serious geo political changes are looming, changes that will alter our foreign policies, our view on free speech, changes that will alter the West, our way of life, and for the worse and not for the better.
In a matter of fact, it is already happening right now. Recently the United States joined Egypt in sponsoring an anti-free speech resolution in the UN Human Rights Council. You know that council that itself is an insult to human rights since the worst human rights offenders of the world like Cuba, Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan are members.
The Obama-administration and Europe supported a resolution to recognize exceptions to free speech to any negative religious stereotyping. This appeasement of the non-free Arab world is the beginning of the end. An erosion of free speech and your own First Amendment. This UN resolution is an absolute disgrace.
As Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University yesterday so rightfully stated in the newspaper USA Today, and I quote: "Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech - the literal sacred institution of society" - end of quote. That the weak leaders of my own continent Europe supported such a terrible resolution does not come as a surprise to me. But it's a sad thing that for the first time in history, the American administration has taken a leading role against our right to free speech.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is one Western country that has been forced to fight the forces of jihad for its values since the very first day of its existence: Israel, the canary in the coal mine. Let me say a few words about that wonderful country.
I had the privilege of living in Israel. However, in Europe being pro-Israel makes you an endangered species. Israel is a beacon of light in an area - the Middle East - that is pitch black everywhere else. Israel is a Western democracy, while Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt are medieval dictatorships.The so-called 'Middle East conflict' is not about land at all. It is a conflict about ideologies; a battle between Islam and freedom. It is not about some land in Gaza or in Judea and Samaria. It is about Jihad. To Islam the whole of Israel is occupied territory. They see Tel Aviv and Haifa as settlements too.
I am very much in favor of a two-state solution. I mean Churchill's 1921 two-state solution, when Palestine was partitioned in a Jewish and an Arab part. Arab Palestine is now called Jordan, and therefore, there is already a Palestinian state. With eighty percent of the population having roots on the other side of the Jordan, there is no doubt Jordan is truly the state of Palestine.
Islam forces Israel to fight, and Israel is not just fighting for itself. Israel is fighting for all of us, for the entire West. Just like those brave American soldiers who landed in Sicily in 1943 and stormed the Normandy beaches in 1944, young Israeli men and women are fighting for our freedom, our civilization.
Ladies and gentlemen, Europe ought to fully back Israel to the hilt in its relentless fight against those that threaten it, whether it is Hezbollah, Hamas or a nuclear Iran. Also, because of its history, Europe certainly has the moral obligation to prevent at all cost another Holocaust against the Jewish people. But most important of all: Israel is fighting the jihad that is meant for all of us. So we all should defend Israel. We all are Israel.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is good news also! Europe might slowly be awakening. More and more people are fed up with cultural relativism and politicians ignoring the negative effects of mass-immigration and the creeping Islamization of Europe.
During the European elections last June the worst cultural relativists, the socialists, lost nearly everywhere: In the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Germany, in Austria, in France, in Spain, in Italy and, perhaps best of all, in the UK.
But, my party, the Dutch Freedom Party was the winner in the recent elections for the European Parliament. Right now, in the polls, we even are number 1. If there would be elections in the Netherlands tomorrow, whether you like it or not, I could very well become the next Prime Minister of The Netherlands.
Ladies and gentlemen, time is running out, we need to act. As I already said, we need less Islam, and more freedom. We have to protect our most important right, our right to free speech. We have to protect our liberties. That is why I propose the following measures, measures to preserve our freedom:
First. We have to end all forms of cultural relativism. For this purpose we need an amendment to our Western constitutions stating that our cultural foundation is the Judeo Christian Humanistic culture, and not Islam.
Second. We have to stop the mass immigration from Muslim countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.
Third. I have a clear message to all Muslims in our societies: If you subscribe to our laws, our values and our constitutions you are very welcome to stay and we will help you to assimilate.
But, if you cross the red line and commit violent crimes or the implementation of shariah law and start practicing jihad, you are not welcome anymore, then we will expel you if possible the same day.
Fourth. We have to strengthen our laws regarding freedom of speech. In Europe we urgently need some kind of American First Amendment. And we have to resist UN-resolutions that intend to weaken our right of free speech in another attempt to appease the Islamic world.
Fifth, last but not least. We have to elect brave leaders. Real leaders. We enjoy the privilege of living in a democracy. Let us use that privilege by replacing weak leaders with heroes. Let us have fewer Neville Chamberlains and more Winston Churchills!
In short, ladies and gentlemen, my main message of today is that we have to start fighting back. No defence, but offence. We have to fight back and demonstrate that millions of people are sick and tired of losing, of giving in, of appeasing. We must make clear that millions of freedom loving people are saying: enough is enough.
Ladies and gentlemen, I leave you with this: I will never give in nor give up. And we should never surrender nor compromise about freedom, the most important right we still have in our free western societies. We have to win, and I am confident: we will win!
Thank you very much.
"Before I want to speak about Islam, I first would like to say this: I have nothing against Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims in our Western countries are law abiding people, who want to live a peaceful life. I know that. Therefore, I make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam."
It's not a clear distinction: It's a muddy, incoherent, untenable, impractical -- and ultimately reckless distinction.
WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP! THANK YOU, Mr. Wilders! May Yahweh God Bless you and Keep you and may Our beloved Heavenly Father make your voice and His voice RING in our hearts!
Wonderin1
The first ten paragraphs of Wilders's speech really brings it home--his fate of needing round the clock bodyguarding speaks volumes about the state of free speech in the West.
How many commenters here would even use their own names on this blog? Quite frankly, I'd be a little concerned about putting my own name out in the public.
Thank goodness for people like Robert Spencer and Mr. Wilders for the courage to speak out despite the personal risks involved.
It would be nice to see Mr. Wilder and Mr. Beck yap it up for an Hr. or so. So much time, to cover so much material, for so many People.
It would be very entertaining to see so much of the Media rant and rave over the Thumbs stuck in their Eyes. See if that hot line ever rings.
Hesperado, I think he was just being diplomatic otherwise he'd say he really "doesn't trust any of them fuckers!" or would never have them over for dinner.
American politicians! Read the words of a true leader and remember that you must recognize the reality of Islam.
Read the Qur'an. Study the history of Jihad! Remember that nearly all of the Muslim population on this planet have ancestors that were converted to Islam at the point of a sword.
Never submit!
There is no way Glenn Beck would have him on considering Beck's view on Islam which is considerably more CAIR like than anything else.
"The problem is that, to many `Muslims, Muhammad is 'the perfect man', whose life is the model to follow. But the facts show that the so called Prophet was not a perfect man but a murderer and a pedophile."
Hear, hear, Geert! ...some 'perfect man'...Muhammad the 'perfect manwhore' is more like it.
Mr Robert Spencer , Mr Geert & Mm Pam are doing good service. May all of them be blessed with all the goodies. I came across Dr Michael Greens videos part 1 to 3 . They too are very convincing .
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7805983728884311070#
The Gospel & Islam by Dr Michael Green.( He is different from Prof. Michael Green succeeding Sir Stephen Hawking )
"Hesperado, I think he was just being diplomatic otherwise he'd say he really "doesn't trust any of them..."
The quote above is an example of what remains our central problem. Geert is one of the least politically correct among us and we appreciate him for it, but even he feels he must be politically correct and BS just a little to stay on the air.
Being "diplomatic" is a polite term for not saying what you mean.
Our free speech is intimidated into speaking lies and half-truths not because of speech-suppression laws or Sharia law, but because of the demands of our own culture of "correctness" - the cultural relativism that demands that everything is equally good and shalt not be criticised.
I guess Geert is mimicking the "love the sinner but hate the sin" mantra when he speaks of Muslims, good; Islam, bad. However, Muslims are Muslims because they believe in and practice Islam. Most sinners don't "believe in" sin, they just practice it. And most sins that are practiced aren't focused at destroying our civilization. Islam is.
Muslims are Muslims because they believe in and practice Islam.
--posted by gfmucci
That's nonsense. Most muhammadans are muhammadans because their parents were/are muhammadans, just as most Jews are Jews because their parents are Jewish. Same with all religions.
There are more and more ex-muslims in the world which simply proves that an idiocy like islam is not acceptable to an individual with an IQ higher than room temperature.
Great Job Mr. Wilders - and please keep up the fight.
I posted this at Atlas Shrugs, it's worth repeating.
The next time Mr. Wilders presents, he might want to have his staff pass out a questionnaire before he begins. Questionnaire can look something like below:
1. Do you believe that slavery is OK?
2. Do you believe that sex slavery is OK?
3. Do you believe that polygamy is OK?
4. Do you believe that domestic violence is OK?
5. Do you believe that it's OK to kill if people change religions?
6. Do you believe that extortion is OK?
7. Do you believe that it's OK to call others pigs and apes?
8. Do you believe that it's OK to kill gays?
9. Do you believe it's OK to kill mothers, sisters, daughters, and women for "honor"?
10. Do you believe it's OK to kill others for insults, either real or perceived?
If you answered No to anyone of the above 10, you're like me, you're considered an Islamaphobe. He can then go point by point, mentioning the relevant Koranic verses.
Also, it's HIGHY RECOMMENDED to have a pamphlet or something for the audience members to take home to share with others. I suspect that most participants don't take many notes, thereby forgetting much. The link below might help with this.
Jew Lover - Crazy Islam
What a great speech. I am shocked it happened at Columbia--now I'd almost forgive them for when they invited Ahmadinejad to speak!
Sorry - OT!
A must see video America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
Has anyone else heard of this? Could this be true? Shocking!
Except that many Muslims are so because they are born into a Muslim family... I know, details, details...
Remember Tanya Soskina. Israeli government sentenced her to three years in jail for drawing a Mohammed cartoon. She depicted him as a pig, which is true.
Hesperado, I'm sure there are some "moderate" Muslims that are relatively non-religious and are very lukewarm concerning Islam. BUT, they stay Muslim because it is easier to remain in the Islamic brotherhood and they don't want to be hunted like a dog and killed by the vast majority of the other Muslims. These same "moderate" Muslims have a very warped set of ethics and beliefs or none at all, and we should not trust them in either case. That is, unless they are secretly Christian, Hindu, Jewish, or other religion with a civilized behaviour.
I understand Geert Wilders statement and he leaves the door open for these "moderates" to be something other than Islamic. One never knows when they may find a Muslim (probably female) with love in their heart and searching for a peaceful existence.
Awesome speech; one I wish we could hear on mainstream TV in the UK; see these words in mainstream newspapers - in other words to know who is our enemy.
For certain Islam is the enemy, but only a few can see it, and they aren't allowed to speak.
One man (unfortunately tainted by racism) who does speak out is on the BBC tonight and the Islamic taqqiya machine is in top gear. The Muslim Council of Britain have released a statement saying the Question Time appearance "will create deep divisions in our society, and is disrespectful to the memory of those people, including many Muslims, who sacrificed so much to end Fascism in Europe during the Second World War."
Muslims sacrificed so much to end Fascism in WW2?? They were allied to Hitler!
Columbia is an Ivy League school. Yet if you watch all the youtube segments of Wilders' speech, and his question and answer session, you realize what should have been evident a long time ago: Ivy League doesn't mean smart. Listen to the students' questions, and the applause from the audience, and, if you are an informed, reflective person about these issues, the students and the audience applauding them seem like glib idiots. Their penetration of the issues seems utterly superficial.
May I just say: GO GEERT! BRAVO!
Hesperado - I don't think Wilders is being PC per se - I think he is making the distinction between "cultural" Muslims and "ardent" ones. While it is true the when push comes to shove (and the ardent Muslims always cause that to happen) the "cultural" Muslims will not resist and will even aid and abet the ardent ones, they are not otherwise driven by the aggressive tenets of Islam. I think of Nazis in Germany in the 30's and 40's - there were the Goebbels, wide-eyed, true believers and the many more who were just Nazis in name only because it seemed like the thing to do, or so that they wouldn't become a target of the Nazis (Nazism, like Islam, promotes a strong "us vs them" worldview - you are either with us or against us, no neatrality is possible). While these passive Nazis were still the enemy, and still lent moral, economic, political etc support to the Nazi Party, if removed from the context of a Nazi state, they would not have been Nazis at all.
The problem we face is that it is all but impossible to know which Muslims are really laid back and which are just good at taqqiya. And any one of them can at any time contract Sudden Jihad Syndrome. But our tradition is innocent until proven guilty, even when one associates with a known criminal gang (it's not illegal simply to be a Hell's Angel, even if being one almost assures some criminal activity).
So what to do with all that?
1. Stop Muslim immigration (there is no such thing as a "right" to immigrate.
2. Immediately prosecute and/or deport those who advocate sedition (Sharia, etc) EVEN IF THEY ARE CITIZENS.
3. Immediately deport immigrants caught committing the least crime. If they have children in country, the kids go too.
MHO
Hesperado, Yankel, Berean, gfmucci,
The reason we distinguish between Muslims and Islam is not political correctness, or not just that. It's that the West has a Judeo-Christian heritage in which each individual is to some degree considered sacred. It's really that simple. Therefore, many of the best of us consider it part of their highest calling to try to save each and every individual human being that can possibly be saved. We do not think first and foremost in collective categories, such as "All Muslims are x." We distinguish. "Certain evidence suggests that 60% of Muslims are x. Certain other evidence proves that 30% of Muslims are y." Etc.
Hesperado might be right (though I doubt it) that the distinction between Islam and Muslims is not practical in the current situation. But the distinction, even if not practical, is for Judeo-Christian culture to some extent inevitable. If you consider the individual sacred, then I don't think it would be consistent to jettison so totally and unequivocally, as Hesperado perhaps does, the distinction between Islam and Muslims.
Since several on this forum are critiquing the brave man's speech, this one caught my attention:
"I would never judge your President. But these remarks of President Obama, do not only affect America, but Europe too. I am afraid that President Obama's remarks could be a turning point in history. I fear that serious geo political changes are looming, changes that will alter our foreign policies, our view on free speech, changes that will alter the West, our way of life, and for the worse and not for the better."
I will judge this president. Why not? I believe we are obligated to make moral judgments. No question about it, President Obama's remarks are a turning point in American and world history. President Obama has taken this nation to a new moral low. But let us not forget, former President George W. Bush began lying about Islam; egregiously so. Though, for instance, 15 of the 19 September hijackers were Saudi nationals, though Osama bin Laden is Saudi, though Saudi Arabia is the world's largest exporter of this murderous stream of Islam, Bush made clear that the Saudis are not (as Mark Steyn wrote in his book "America Alone") "fiends," but our good friends.
Nonetheless conservative activists and Republican party leaders and George W. Bush apologists nation-wide stood by Bush in his many lies about our enemies. Is it any wonder we have come this new moral low when we conservatives failed to hold our own leader accountable? I've neither read nor heard Bush apologists on the radio or the Internet address these moral failures.
Islam macht frei
Something very interesting has just happened in Australia.
A self-proclaimed Muslim 'cleric' has been sending really nasty, harassing, spiteful and threatening letters to Australian families whose menfolk have been killed in action in Afghanistan fighting jihadists. The family who received the nastiest letters of all, was a Jewish-Australian family.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26243632-2702,00.html
The cleric has been arrested and charged.
See this link:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26245082-29277,00.html
'On Tuesday Sheikh Haron was charged with seven counts of "using a postal service or similar service to menace, harass, or cause offence". He was granted bail to appear in court on November 10.'
No-nonsense advice from the Jewish soldier's dad, Mr Felix Sher, has been headlined in 'The Australian' newspaper:
'Immigrants "who can't adapt should leave"'.
'Asked if he had something to say to Sheikh Haron, Mr Sher called on immigrants whose values were not in line with the general community to live elsewhere.
"What I would like to say (is) that when people immigrate to Australia, when they actually do so with the intention of integrating with the general community and living in peace and harmony, rather than confronting it, and causing tension and conflict, and irrespective of what one's religious beliefs are, one can still live happily with the community but not dissolve," he said. "If people don't like what's happening in Australia, live elsewhere."'
And what is even more interesting is that our PM seems to be getting a clue:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gJiA1mHVttiCLrF5kHg37V9vSsCA
Headline - 'Australian PM sickened by hate mail sent to war widows'.
Money quote: "The prime minister said he would consider whether Australia's immigration laws should be changed to allow citizenship to be revoked in such cases."
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Do it today, Mr Rudd; change the law to get rid of the likes of Sheikh Haron; and assure yourself a place not just in Australian history but in the history of the free non-Muslim world; in the history of the never-ending resistance against Jihad and Sharia.
A great man lives among us and his name is Geert Wilders. I have no doubt other great men like Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams and Winston Churchill, were they still here, would count Wilders as one of their own.
I can't help also note the deep irony that so many Westerners who despise Geert Wilders (like the rubes at Temple University the other day) fully do not understand that he is fighting for their freedoms too, which they would surely lose if Islam has its way with them.
"The problem we face is that it is all but impossible to know which Muslims are really laid back and which are just good at taqqiya. And any one of them can at any time contract Sudden Jihad Syndrome. But our tradition is innocent until proven guilty"
No. We have to regard Muslims uniquely as guilty until proven innocent.
We will eventually come around to this because of the grim reality of the Islam that Muslims follow.
What all the commenters who responded to my post forget is what Spencer himself has noted several times in the past:
We have no reliable way, sufficiently for our purposes of safety, to tell the difference between harmless Muslims and dangerous Muslims.
It's that simple. It blows out of the water any talk of the difference between Islam and Muslims, and between so-called "relaxed" Muslims and "ardent" Muslims. For our pragmatic purposes of our security, we cannot tell the difference. Rationally speaking all Muslims are to be equally suspected of lethal danger to us.
Now put on your thinking caps and come to the logical conclusion from this.
Or do I have to wait another 10 years, and after how many more attacks, and after another mountain of evidence about the widespread fanaticism of Muslims all over the world, and of plots of attacks against the West?
Hi Hesperado,
I am sure you have discussed this before, but in practical terms how would wholesale deportation work?
We can not distinguish between peaceful Muslims, and violent ones, anymore than we can distinguish between Muslims, and non-Muslims, because Muslims can lie.
Also, what about former Muslims, or people who are not Muslims, but support them?
I agree with you that deportation should be a part of the solution, as a kind of incentive to get the ugly Muslims to leave on their own.
Additionally, I am influenced by the recommendation of Serge Trikovic to deny all Islamic activists entry to the United States. Muslims can be free to practice their religion, but may not hold public office, serve in the military, or be granted a security clearance.
This sounds unconstitutional, so a redefinition of Islam is required that distinguishes between the spiritual, and the political sides of the religion.
I think this can be done. Geert Wilders is trying to do it. It has been attempted before.
Robert Spencer’s latest book mentions the Calcutta Quran Petition, here is a link to the text of that petition. It is interesting reading, a bit of an anodyne.
http://www.voi.org/books/tcqp/index.htm
hi livingengine,
"I am sure you have discussed this before, but in practical terms how would wholesale deportation work?"
I don't know what you mean by "work". I think anyone with elementary education could figure out how to deport masses of people. You round them up, put them on vehicles of one kind or another, remove them, and deposit them elsewhere.
"We can not distinguish between peaceful Muslims, and violent ones, anymore than we can distinguish between Muslims, and non-Muslims, because Muslims can lie."
More precisely, we cannot distinguish these things sufficiently for our collective safety. It might be that, on a micro scale, in occasional one-on-one interactions or relationships, one can feel confident one has come to know a genuinely harmless Muslim. But on a macro scale, such occasional experiences become worthless -- if not, potentially, recklessly lethal: "But Mr. FBI agent, I know Rasheed, he's a really nice guy, he even gave my aunt tennis lessons and brought us a bottle of egg nog for our Christmas party! His sons play on the same soccer team as our son at the junior high school! He wouldn't hurt a fly! You must have the wrong guy if you think he might be involved in this terrorist cell...!" Etc. I don't care how intelligent, sincere and decent such a non-Muslim reference might be: when it comes to a possible WMD plot against us, all that data about how nice Rasheed is, is utterly worthless: worse yet, dangerously counter-productive to our safety.
"Also, what about former Muslims, or people who are not Muslims, but support them?"
Former Muslims I would permit to stay, but under continued surveillance. Western people who support Muslims should not be deported, but imprisoned as traitors under sedition act.
"I agree with you that deportation should be a part of the solution, as a kind of incentive to get the ugly Muslims to leave on their own."
That's not my plan. I do not advocate trying to get Muslims to leave voluntarily. I advocate forcibly deporting all of them. The sooner the better, the less messy, the less bloody. The later the messier and the bloodier.
"Additionally, I am influenced by the recommendation of Serge Trikovic to deny all Islamic activists entry to the United States."
That's great (except that Trikovic will have the same problem differentiating the "activists" from the covertly dangerous ones: good luck with that). But we already have millions of Muslims in the West now. And by the time the West is ready to warm up to Trikovic, we will have millions more. At that point, stopping immigration will be like closing and locking the barn door -- not after the horse has fled, but after the wolves are inside the barn.
Why must I spell out these painfully common-sensical points at this late stage of the game anyway?
"Muslims can be free to practice their religion, but may not hold public office, serve in the military, or be granted a security clearance."
With millions of Muslims within the West (and many more millions by the time such policies would be able to be implemented, given the many years, if not decades, it would take for PC MC to be sufficiently chipped away), such actions would provoke Muslims within the West to be even more dangerous than they already are: you would be looking at mass insurrections, riots, terror cells, etc. Then the West would not only be forced to my position, but worse -- to ethnic cleansing, and actual battles against Muslims in its own borders. This is ridiculous. We must work toward the single goal of ejecting them all and ridding ourselves of the problem -- with a residue remaining of course, since no strategy will be perfect: but this one will be better than dealing with the escalating problems of millions of Muslims within our borders.
"Robert Spencer’s latest book mentions the Calcutta Quran Petition, here is a link to the text of that petition. It is interesting reading, a bit of an anodyne."
I'd rather see a Musilm Petition -- since it is actual human Muslims putting the Koran into practice that is the problem, not an inert book.
Mass deportations of Muslims would be unconstitutional, Hesperado, for the same reason mass deportations of Communist Party members here in America during the Cold War would have been. The Constitution protects virtually all belief systems. What it doesn't necessarily protect is acting upon all beliefs. If a person here in America wants to think that Mohammed was the Model Man, that Islam is the true religion and that Sharia should replace the Constitution of the United States as the law of the land, then that person under the First Amendment has a complete right to those beliefs. You can't deport such a person for thinking what he does (even though I would agree with you that such thinking is not only erroneous but disgusting). Of course, when some Muslims act out their warped creed to the extent that they violate specific laws, then those specific Muslims can be charged with felonious behavior, but beliefs themselves are not criminal or unconstitutional.
The way to marginalizing Islam in the US (and all the West) is to discredit it as Marxism and fascism have been. You would have to change the Constitution to do what you advocate and that's not going to happen. Sensible people must show less than sensible people that Islam sucks. Mass deporting Muslims is just not going to happen.
I am afraid it may take something like serial nuclear explosions in major American cities, followed by extortion before people will accept mass deportation.
I can understand why you might not want to wait that long.
Wellington :
[applause]
Precisely why the holiday gifts I purchase this year will comprise entirely of books by the author Robert Spencer.
Spread the word, email links, harry the cult.
Wellington,
"Mass deportations of Muslims would be unconstitutional, Hesperado, for the same reason mass deportations of Communist Party members here in America during the Cold War would have been."
The Constitution doesn't forbid mass deportation, any more than it forbids interning citizens (FDR) or arresting newspaper reporters (Lincoln). When there is danger of sedition and lethal attacks, the Constitution would not stand in the way of mass deportation, if the mass being deported were concluded to be 1) inspired by a seditious ideology; 2) sufficiently cohesive to enable networking for those among them to plot and carry out WMD attacks on us; 3) insufficiently separated, to our abilities to percieve, into a) those we can trust are not going to attack us and/or enable the attackers and b) those we cannot so trust.
"The Constitution protects virtually all belief systems. What it doesn't necessarily protect is acting upon all beliefs."
There is a complex of unique features about the threat from Muslims that transforms this from a problem of people who "act on their beliefs" to a prevention problem of an amorphous mass of people with a different sociology and different social dynamics and ability to network and camouflage each other, among whom are innumerable, difficult-to-pinpoint, difficult-to-distinguish fanatics hell-bent on mass-murdering as many of us as possible with WMDs if they can get their hands on them and lay down the intricate plans for deploying same. It's no longer a criminal problem of only targeting the people who "act on their beliefs". We have a much bigger problem that has to be prevented. The dangers are sufficiently high to treat all Muslims as lethally dangerous. Or should we wait until the entire house is on fire before we evacuate the building, instead forcing the situation into a conflagration that will cost more lives and destruction -- and far more abuses of ethics -- in the end?
"If a person here in America wants to think that Mohammed was the Model Man, that Islam is the true religion and that Sharia should replace the Constitution of the United States as the law of the land, then that person under the First Amendment has a complete right to those beliefs."
Not if that belief is indissolubly part of a sociopolitico-psychological matrix of supremacist sedition that poses a lethal threat to us. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
"You can't deport such a person for thinking what he does (even though I would agree with you that such thinking is not only erroneous but disgusting)."
Cf. supra.
"Of course, when some Muslims act out their warped creed to the extent that they violate specific laws, then those specific Muslims can be charged with felonious behavior, but beliefs themselves are not criminal or unconstitutional."
Cf. supra.
"The way to marginalizing Islam in the US (and all the West) is to discredit it as Marxism and fascism have been."
Meanwhile, the millions of Muslims in the West will continue to be breeding grounds for difficult-to-track cells planning WMD attacks against us, as well as smaller-scale attacks like Mumbai.
I say all this sitting here, after years of having read the veritable mountain range of volcanos of data on Jihad Watch (not to mention many other sources). I cannot fathom how anyone who is already awake to the problem of Islam can moderate their proposed methodologies for dealing with it -- unless they haven't really assimilated the full catastrophe, the full horror of it.
Under present Constitutional and statutory law, mass deportation of Muslims would probably not be supported by a single judge in all of the federal judiciary (and even if you could find one or two it would still prove my point). Yes, President Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War, sometimes through entire states, but that's authorized by the Constitution for extreme situations. Potential destruction of America by a belief system (like Islam or Marxism) wouldn't qualify here legally and constiutionally speaking, the Constitution not being a suicide pact notwithstanding. Making things all the more difficult is that unlike fascism and Marxism, Islam is a religion (and those who claim it isn't would make no headway from a Constitutional point of view) and thus has extra protections under the First Amendment, the very amendment that I think Abdullah Mikhail and his ilk would eventually like to do away with or re-interpret into oblivion. Here, Islam has an advantage, no doubt about it.
Look, I share your distaste and disgust with many Islamic tenets and I also share your concern about a worst-case scenario by which America is transformed into something it is not precisely because Islam gets its way here, but mass deportations just ain't going to happen. What must be done is what I mentioned before and that it the mass discrediting of Islam in the eyes of a vast majority of Americans. Ain't there yet but a recent poll I saw showed that 38% of Americans think that there's something intrinsically wrong with Islam (wouldn't have been that high just ten years ago). That needs to double and then we'll be well on the way to few having any respect for Islam. Once that occurs, we're in charge. And I think it will occur and it will include many Muslims here in America finally seeing the light and leaving their warped creed. A hundred years from now, I strongly believe that Islam will more or less have been consigned to the trash heap of history. After all, it is awful and now being exposed to the whole world for what it is will eventually destroy it.
This is the same speech he gave at Temple University. I commented on that speech, but I'll repost it here again as it applies just as much to his Columbia speech as to Temple.
...
I watched all four of the YouTube Clips of Wilders' talk at Temple. His message is familiar to readers here and didn't contain anything new that hasn't been discussed in depth on these pages, but there were several other things that struck me as significant about his speech.
1. The obvious presence of security guards. Wilders mentioned the life he has been living during the last five years, where because of threats on his life from Muslims he has been forced to always be accompanied by a security detail.
2. The audience was relatively tame in comparison with talks given, say, by David Horowitz on campuses around the U.S., with a near complete absence of shouting by Muslims.
3. Wilders pointed out the rising alarm in the E.U. about the problems being caused by Muslim immigration, and as a direct result of this the increasing influence being enjoyed by the conservative political parties there. He mentioned that if current trends continue he may become the next Dutch Prime Minister.
4. He explicitly called for halting further immigration into the E.U. from Muslim countries. (There was no mention of Turkey, but the connection with Turkey's application for membership in the E.U. is pregnantly obvious.) He explicitly called for Americans to become aware of what is happening in Europe, and take steps to ensure that we do not allow ourselves to get into a similar situation.
5. He expressed his admiration for the U.S. Constitution, and said that what was needed in the E.U. was the equivalent of our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. Is it too much to hope that if he becomes PM he will push for inclusion of this in the European Constitution?
Although we have all heard his message before, because his talk was delivered on American soil and because of the PC/MC atmosphere on American campuses, I was a little surprised at how explicit he was about the problems being caused by Islam. I noted what seemed to be a bit of wariness in his demeanor [he was somewhat less wary at Columbia than at Temple], as if expecting an outburst or worse from the audience. It didn't come, and he was allowed to deliver his talk without incident. It's a message that needs to be heard, and Temple University, to its credit, after what appeared to be some waffling allowed Wilders to speak.
Thanks to everyone who made Wilders' visit possible. Hopefully there will be many more. When he becomes Prime Minister, I hope we will have a president with whom he can engage in a fruitful dialog about these matters.
Wellington,
"authorized by the Constitution for extreme situations. Potential destruction of America by a belief system (like Islam or Marxism) wouldn't qualify here legally and constiutionally speaking, the Constitution not being a suicide pact notwithstanding."
It's not a legal matter; it's a matter of authorities appreciating the gravity of the situation. When "potential destruction" is appreciated for its exigency, and when the complex of the unique nature of the Islamic threat is intelligently digested, then deportation will be applied, and will not in any way require changing the Constitution.