| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Geert Wilders is the Dutch MP who is producing a film on the Qur'an that has the Islamic world in a frenzy even before anyone has actually seen it. This New Duranty Times profile is, well, not as bad as it could have been, but contains several sly digs at Wilders, whom it treats with condescension throughout, and contains almost nothing about the fantastic disproportion of the Muslim reaction to his film, and the necessity of preserving free speech even when some may find it offensive.
"A Dutch Antagonist of Islam Waits for His Premiere," by Gregory Crouch for the New York Times (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
[...] Days away from releasing a much-anticipated film critical of the Koran, Mr. Wilders recalled in an interview the advice he received years ago from political leaders about how to get ahead.“First, you have to moderate your voice about Islam,” he remembered their telling him. “Second, change your stupid hair.”
He has refused to do either.
“If people push me, I do exactly the opposite,” he said.
There are two noteworthy aspects of this. One is that political leaders, presumably Dutch ones, try to mute or silence Islamocritical or Islamorealistic voices in the public sphere. The other is that that the Times is suggesting that Wilders's Qur'an film simply arises from his being a contrarian and an exhibitionist: look! He dyes his hair platinum blonde! And if that isn't enough to get attention, he criticizes the Qur'an! And it's all just because he's an immature fellow who won't do what sensible people tell him to do!
Mr. Wilders, 44, is in the news here these days for a 10-to-15-minute film he says he has made depicting the Koran as the inspiration for terrorist attacks and other violence. Having failed to persuade a single Dutch television network to broadcast the film in its entirety, he said he planned to release it on the Internet by the end of this month.He routinely equates the Koran with Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” saying it should be banned in the Netherlands, and he declared in an interview that the Prophet Muhammad could be compared to the German dictator.
“In his Medina time, if he would be alive today, Muhammad would be treated as a war criminal, being sent out of the country, being sent to jail,” he said.
Moderate Dutch Muslim leaders like Mohamed Rabbae, chairman of the Dutch Moroccan Council, are exasperated by Mr. Wilders’s standpoint on Islam and its prophet.
“Wilders is a little bit crazy, if I may say it in this way, because he is fighting against somebody who has been living in the sixth century, not in our time,” Mr. Rabbae said.
A highly disingenuous comment from Rabbae. I expect that he knows full well that the Qur’an and Islamic tradition are clear that Muhammad is the supreme example of behavior for Muslims to follow, not just in the seventh century (he died in 632) but for all time. He is “an excellent model of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21). He demonstrates “an exalted standard of character” (68:4), and indeed, “he who obeys the Messenger [Muhammad], obeys Allah” (4:80). The Qur’an frequently tells Muslims to obey Allah and Muhammad: while the Muslim holy book takes for granted that Muhammad is fallible (cf. 48:2; 80:1-12), it also instructs Muslims repeatedly to obey Muhammad (3:32; 3:132; 4:13; 4:59; 4:69; 5:92; 8:1; 8:20; 8:46; 9:71; 24:47; 24:51; 24:52; 24:54; 24:56; 33:33; 47:33; 49:14; 58:13; 64:12).
Any devout Muslim will take this seriously. Muqtedar Khan of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy explains: "No religious leader has as much influence on his followers as does Muhammad (Peace be upon him) the last Prophet of Islam….And Muhammad as the final messenger of God enjoys preeminence when it comes to revelation – the Qur’an – and traditions. So much so that the words, deeds and silences (that which he saw and did not forbid) of Muhammad became an independent source of Islamic law. Muslims, as a part of religious observance, not only obey, but also seek to emulate and imitate their Prophet in every aspect of life. Thus Muhammad is the medium as well as a source of the divine law."
But Rabbae, instead of explaining all this, implies that Muhammad is merely a historical figure, and that Wilders is indulging in anachronism.
Virtually no one knows exactly what is in Mr. Wilders’s film; even the Netherlands’ worried prime minister has not been granted a screening. But the simple fact that Mr. Wilders is its muse makes people here and in parts of the Islamic world nervous.Mr. Wilders said he made the film to show that “Islam and the Koran are part of a fascist ideology that wants to kill everything we stand for in a modern Western democracy.”
Instead of explaining that, or allowing Wilders to do so, perhaps by pointing out how jihad terrorists repeatedly invoke the Qur'an to justify jihad violence and Islamic supremacism, the article follows that up by starting to talk about "hate crimes":
SOME here see Mr. Wilders’s film — titled “Fitna,” Arabic for civil strife — as a potential hate crime and have already filed police complaints in various Dutch cities, concerned that his past statements and the film will polarize religious groups and foster discrimination.His supporters say he protects traditional Dutch values. His critics, and there are many, say he is an out-of-control, right-wing extremist risking his country’s good name for his own political gain. Others are even harsher; one former trade union leader called Mr. Wilders “evil.”
"His critics, and there are many, say he is an out-of-control, right-wing extremist risking his country’s good name for his own political gain." There you have it, Times readers. No need to take this guy seriously. Call someone "right-wing" in the Times, and faithful Times readers, like Pavlov's dogs, know exactly how to react.
And then the Times, whether out of some residual sense of decency or purely by accident, illustrates who the out-of-control, evil extremists really are by touching on the threats under which Wilders lives:
“Of course I am not evil,” Mr. Wilders responded, looking a little annoyed. “Do I look evil to you? Maybe I do, but I’m not.”Mr. Wilders, who lives under constant police protection in an undisclosed location, is undeterred by threats from the Taliban to escalate attacks against Dutch soldiers in Afghanistan if the film is released.
But it's all because he is unrelenting and unreasonable, you see, and he -- not the lunatics who are poised to riot and kill because of his film -- is endangering Dutch interests:
Nor is he moved by Dutch expatriates abroad who, remembering the fallout from the Danish cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad, worry that the film may make their lives harder, or even dangerous.Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister, told a public television reporter that he found it “irresponsible to broadcast this film.”
“That’s because Dutch companies, Dutch soldiers and Dutch residents could and will be in danger,” Mr. Verhagen said.
Such statements spur Mr. Wilders on, and in his opinion unintentionally prove that Islam is a rigid, intolerant religion whose followers try to muffle criticism, often violently. Framing himself as a defender of free speech, Mr. Wilders said there would not be such a fuss about his film if it were about the Bible.
Can anyone dispute that?
“We can never allow people who use nondemocratic means, people who use violence instead of arguments, people who use knives instead of debates, we can never allow them to set the agenda,” he said.
Yes!
And in this part of the story the Times comes close to doing Wilders justice, and actually illustrates his statement, as it failed to do so above when he spoke about the Qur'an, with examples proving his point:
After the 2004 release of a short film here that graphically portrayed the abuse of women in the Islamic world, the director, Theo van Gogh, was killed by a Muslim extremist.Mr. Wilders, already in the Dutch Parliament for six years at that point, was not associated with that film, but he went briefly into hiding when government security forces feared he might become the next target.
Two years later, memories of the van Gogh murder — coupled with concerns about Muslim immigration — helped Mr. Wilders and his newly formed Party for Freedom capture 6 percent of the seats in Parliament.
Of the Netherlands’ 16.5 million residents, a million are either Muslim or of Muslim descent. Many of them are so-called guest workers from Morocco, Turkey and other Islamic countries who came here decades ago to work in factories and stayed to raise families of their own.
But don't get the idea that Wilders is some sort of heroic figure. He is, like Bertrans de Born, just a stirrer-up of strife, a successful miner of unease:
Occasionally, conflicts arise between mainstream Dutch society — which supports gay marriage and legalized prostitution, for instance — and the often more conservative Muslim minority, and Mr. Wilders has successfully mined the unease between them.
Or worse:
“Ten to 15 percent of the Dutch voters more or less see him as a new leader, one who dares to say what he thinks,” said Hugo van der Parre, deputy editor of the Dutch television news program “Nova.” But “many people see him, as well, as a nut case.”MR. WILDERS says he detests Islam but not Muslims. “I believe the Islamic ideology is a retarded, dangerous one, but I make a distinction,” he said. “I don’t hate people. I don’t hate Muslims.
He added: “I am not saying all Muslims are wrong or are terrorists or criminals. You will never hear me say that.”
One would think this is an elementary point, but it eludes the grasp of many on both sides of this issue. Many of those who regard any criticism of the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism as "bigoted" and "racist," as well as those who well understand the violent and supremacist teachings contained within the Qur'an and Sunnah as they have been traditionally understood in Islamic theology, seem to have trouble distinguishing between belief and practice. Benazir Bhutto, and/or her ghostwriter Mark Siegel, did this when they accused me (on the basis of an Ibn Warraq quotation they falsely ascribed to me) of failing to "differentiate between moderate Muslims and violent Islamists." The quote meant to illustrate this only points out that the jihadists are acting on traditional and mainstream teachings of Islam, as they manifestly are.
But does this mean that all Muslims are acting upon them? That would be absurd. People who have no difficulty grasping that not everyone who identifies himself as a Christian loves his enemy or turns the other cheek, or even cares to, or even perhaps knows that he ought to or has ever thought about what it might mean to do so, seem to have trouble conceptualizing the possibility that huge numbers of Muslims -- and this is reinforced also by various cultural factors around the world -- have no interest in forwarding the Islamic supremacist program, and may in all sincerity not even be aware of it.
That doesn't mitigate the existence of that program one whit, or alter the fact that jihadists are recruiting among cultural Muslims by calling them back to what they present, often successfully, as the "pure" and "true" practice of Islam. Nor does it mean that non-Muslims should not have a healthy awareness of the possibility that they are being deceived, as per not just Shi'ite doctrine but Qur'an 3:28 as it has been understood by Sunnis also, or that they should sit by passively as the Islamic supremacist agenda is spread not by guns and bombs and terrorist attacks but through other, non-violent means. But it does mean, quite simply, that Wilders's distinction is perfectly legitimate -- as in Ibn Warraq's lucid phrase, there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.
Mr. Wilders, who is married and has no children, was raised Roman Catholic, but is no longer religious. The youngest of four children, he traveled and worked his way through the Middle East for two years after his high school graduation. Since then, he said, he has visited Israel at least 40 times and maintains close contacts there. But he has no real connections from his time in the rest of the region, admitting he does not have any Muslim friends.
Ah. So therefore, the Times is telling us, he must not know what he is talking about, or at very least must secretly hate Muslims despite his protestations to the contrary.
His claims to the contrary, some Muslims believe that Mr. Wilders’s animosity toward Islam extends to them.“If you say the prophet is a war criminal, you say, I hate Muslims,” a Dutch newspaper columnist, Youssef Azghari, said in an interview. “Because the prophet is a symbol. He was the one who invented the Islam.”
Youssef Azghari, if he really wanted to blunt the forces of such charges about Muhammad, could take up the uncomfortable aspects of Muhammad's career (as that career is sketched out in texts accepted by Muslims) -- his battles, his assassinations of his enemies, his marriage to a nine-year-old, and the rest -- and rather than simply deny the existence of this material, as Islamic apologists in the West usually do, offer a way for Muslims to reject its literal application. That he does not do so, and probably cannot do so, only makes Wilders's charges ring truer. If Muslims today are going to be following Muhammad as a literal, transhistorical model for conduct, that will threaten the lives and security and civilizations of non-Muslims, and that needs to be said.
Since no one has actually seen Mr. Wilders’s film, some here have started wondering if it is as fake as his hair color, a clever publicity stunt devised to prove his point that Islam and freedom of speech cannot coexist.Mr. Wilders insists the film is every bit as real as his long-held belief that Islam is a danger to Dutch and other Western societies.
“I get in so much trouble, both privately and politically, that if I would do it for publicity reasons, I would be a fool,” he said.
That is a sentence that applies to many more people than just Wilders himself.
Posted by Robert at March 22, 2008 7:28 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Geert Wilders is the Winston Churchill of our time.
Posted by: tanstaafl![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 22, 2008 8:11 AM
My, how times have changed!
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"Dutch expatriates abroad who, remembering the fallout from the Danish cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad, worry that the film may make their lives harder, or even dangerous."
-Netherlands, 2008
"SOME here see Mr. Wilders’s film — titled “Fitna,” Arabic for civil strife — as a potential hate crime and have already filed police complaints in various Dutch cities, concerned that his past statements and the film will polarize religious groups and foster discrimination."
-Netherlands, 2008
“Wilders is a little bit crazy, if I may say it in this way, because he is fighting against somebody who has been living in the sixth century, not in our time,” Mr. Rabbae said.
So why isn't this the standard response from all Muslims? Ignore him and he'll go away. Ignore the cartoons, as Christians and Jews disregard your terrorist cartoon mouse. Surely your faith is big enough to take a few insults. You're awfully defensive where your sixth century idol is concerned. Trying to hide something?
Posted by: PMK at March 22, 2008 8:43 AM
Wilders is a brave, brilliant man.
Posted by: Bingo at March 22, 2008 8:57 AM
“Wilders is a little bit crazy, if I may say it in this way, because he is fighting against somebody who has been living in the sixth century, not in our time,” Mr. Rabbae said.
How about this then:
"Muslims are a little bit crazy, if I may say it in this way, because they are following somebody who has been living in the sixth century, not in our time," cumulusnine said.
More correctly, Wilders, and others like him are fighting against a perverse ideology (not a somebody) that began in the 6th century, and is a festering pathology even to this day.
Posted by: cumulusnine at March 22, 2008 8:58 AM
Everyone has their supporters and detractors. It seems that Wilders detractors are getting nervous.
Only a nervous liberal complains about hair color.
From article: If Muslims today are going to be following Muhammad as a literal, transhistorical model for conduct, that will threaten the lives and security and civilizations of non-Muslims, and that needs to be said.
That's exactly right and why I keep asking the question: Is it possible for a 'good' muslim to
emulate the examples provided by Allah, through the perfect man and role model Mohammad, who must be obeyed for all time...in moderation?
It would seem to me that once the idea of purity and perfection is accepted, moderation ends, and blind obedience begins, also an 'attitude'.
It's very hard to maintain purity and perfection once you have obtained it, you can see what a difficult time Mohammad had maintaining his. Allah was continually testing him with attractive hazards, like other peoples belongings and women, even little girls. But as we can see, Mohammad passed all his tests, and emerges the perfect man and role model. Mohammad is the perfect role model for muslims, as Bill Clinton is the perfect role model for lawyers. Both rising to the apex of adoration. Both achieving wealth, fame, women, and the adoration of the masses. But Clinton failed in his bid to found a religion, while Mohammad did not.
I don't think it is possible for a good muslim to emulate Mohammad perfectly, but it is possible, and apparently mandatory, to at least try.
You can't do that by practicing moderation.
The last thing Mohammad was, was 'moderate'.
As long as Mohammad remains the perfect man and role model for muslims, they will emulate his perfectness, and endanger us all...
at March 22, 2008 9:00 AM
“If you say the prophet is a war criminal, you say, I hate Muslims,” a Dutch newspaper columnist, Youssef Azghari, said in an interview. “Because the prophet is a symbol. He was the one who invented the Islam.”
What happened to the uncreated word of god stuff?
Who is this Muslim columnist?
Posted by: emet-veritas at March 22, 2008 9:13 AM
"he does not have any moslem friends..It is a blessing ,
You cannot be friends with people who smile at you and stab you in the back at the first opportunity.
Experience only can teach you that . The sad part of it is -for a normal person , it will take years to notice the reality and for many others , they will never understand the danger until it explodes in their own backyard.
Very few Moslem can be trusted, and it is certainly not the one you see going to the Mosques.
The more religious they are, the more dangerous.
It is sad fact but it is the truth.
Those people should not live among us.Let us do a good spring cleaning and we will be better off.
at March 22, 2008 9:26 AM
"Muqtedar Khan ... explains: "No religious leader has as much influence on his followers as does Muhammad (Peace be upon him) the last Prophet of Islam…."
Last?
Only.
Posted by: jay at March 22, 2008 9:42 AM
Great new words replacing the misnomer Islamophobe:
"Islamocritical or Islamorealistic voices" -RS
"Muqtedar Khan ... explains: "No religious leader has as much influence on his followers as does Muhammad (Peace be upon him) the last Prophet of Islam…."
Last?
Only.
Posted by: jay at March 22, 2008 9:42 AM
Really! Who do they think they're fooling?!
at March 22, 2008 9:54 AM
Geert Wilders must be an incredibly powerful man if he has the Islamic world in a frenzy before the movie's even been released. And we know the one thing that Muslims notice is someone else's overwhelming, bone crushing power. Sure, they do the blood and guts thing pretty well, but with very little imagination or flair. If one man can make a movie that so disturbs Muslims that they will go on a killing spree to try and stop it from seeing the light of day, then there must be something deeply flawed in the Muslim psyche.
The bleach that Geert uses to dye his hair blonde hasn't done anything to interfere with his clear thinking. Perhaps that is his most effective weapon, a clear, concise, logical thought process against a people who live in chaos, in their own minds, in their homes, in their societies. If one little movie can give them all the drizzles then we need to capitalize on their Achille's Heal and put more pressure, not less, to bring this confrontation to fruition. Sometimes you have to out salve on a boil to draw out the poison. Geert Wilders may be just what the doctor ordered.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 22, 2008 9:54 AM
.... a Dutch newspaper columnist, Youssef Azghari, said in an interview.
“Because the prophet is a symbol. He was the one who invented the Islam.”
I like this quote for the obvious reason. I do not agree with it but I think that it inadvertantly is an admission of the non-holy source of the religion.
As for the asninity of the PC Multiculti editorial of the times masquerading as news, it is probably getting to the point where even the writers must be frustrated with their own obtuseness.
Unlike rose colored glasses where the whole world takes on a pleasant hue, the multiculti glasses must ignore the important questions for the sake of the ideology. Those who were fitted with those glasses and think they wear them well should see themselves the way others do.
Any virtue becomes a vice when it becomes immoderate, and becomes hostile to other virtues, that holds true with respect and tolerance when respect is afforded the disreputable and tolerance is extended to the outrageous.
Posted by: stickman at March 22, 2008 9:56 AM
Geert Wilders may be just what the doctor ordered.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 22, 2008 9:54 AM
I'd say you have an excellent point there, Isabella. And Happy Easter to you.
Posted by: darcy at March 22, 2008 9:58 AM
>>I like this quote for the obvious reason. I do not agree with it but I think that it inadvertantly is an admission of the non-holy source of the religion. --stickman
Yep. A Freudian slip in which the truth comes out!
Mohammed "invented" Islam allright!
Posted by: darcy at March 22, 2008 10:06 AM
Response to Mr. Rabbae:
Muslims are a little bit crazy, if I may say it in this way, because they are fighting FOR somebody who has been living in the sixth century, not in our time. Note that they aren't fighting for wrongs done to them today (because there are none). They are fighting because someone drew a picture of a male face and put Mohammed's name on the caption.
Posted by: PMK at March 22, 2008 10:06 AM
It is difficult to read a writer who timidly puts out little negative Dutch polling responces, and little sarcastic insults supposively fed to him on Geert Wilders. A writer who fails to reflect any truths about Islam and only makes sure that what he is writing are attributed quotes by Geert Wilders.
Yes would this wimpy simpleton of a writer at the New York times dare to venture a bit to far and gather some supportive points that validate Geert Wilders position on what is written in the Quran.
I doubt that he has ever even opened up the book, yes let us keep it to the color of Mr.Wilders Hair,that he is a non practicing Catholic, that he is married without children,that he is just conducting a publicity stunt.
How vain,and shallow can one get in regards to the most serious challenge to the West in our lifetime. I find the entire article repugnant, and insulting to the freedom of expression.
Posted by: Mackie at March 22, 2008 10:22 AM
What's so annoying about this snidey, cowardly sneering diatribe about Wilders and his film is how it will influence the readers of the Times.
It is quite frankly a dollop of putrid vomit that will be gleefully lapped up as nectar by the simpering liberal, PC-brainwashed masses.
Watch how the media will use the reaction of the psychotic muslim world to bay for Wilders' blood and how the treacherous politicians will use it to attempt to stifle yet more of our freedoms.
I wish Geert would hurry up and show the film, the wait is driving me hee!
Posted by: Britannia's Lion
at March 22, 2008 10:32 AM
"His critics, and there are many, say he is an out-of-control, right-wing extremist risking his country’s good name for his own political gain." There you have it, Times readers. No need to take this guy seriously. Call someone "right-wing" in the Times, and faithful Times readers, like Pavlov's dogs, know exactly how to react.
Yep, no strong counter-arguments from critics, based on sound Islamic doctrine, are presented. This tells me the intellectual battle is done and the Wilders of the world have won. Now the "long march through the institutions" needs to happen, in order to secure the practical effects of this intellectual victory.
It's ironic that people who support multiculturalism don't seem to understand the inherent contradiction of supporting the immigration into the West of an ideology, Islam, that is antithetical to the multicultural ideal of cultural equality and anti-assimilationist in the extreme. The other side of this debate is so confused, their best "arguments" are the ones reproduced above. It's pathetic, really, and makes me wonder if some people in the West aren't going to be "forced to be free" by simply shutting them out of policy decision-making when their own biases reduce overall freedom in the West more than curtailing their freedom to participate reduces overall freedom. A tyranny of an Islamo-sympathetic majority is still a tyranny of the majority.
Posted by: venividivici at March 22, 2008 10:33 AM
“We can never allow people who use nondemocratic means, people who use violence instead of arguments, people who use knives instead of debates, we can never allow them to set the agenda."
In just that one short interview, Wilders encapsulates everything that the West should fear, and everything that the counterjihad should be about.
"Mr. Wilders said he made the film to show that 'Islam and the Koran are part of a fascist ideology that wants to kill everything we stand for in a modern Western democracy.'”
Damn right, Geert. Islam IS a fascist ideology in every sense. It uses intimidation and violence as a means to power. It oppresses its victims - even its followers - and threatens all those who do not follow its creed. It despises democracy and sees freedom as malign. All the themes of fascism are there - control, purity, the idolization of sacrifice, and the demonization of the “other” (some of the Islamists’ “others” - Jews, homosexuals, Freemasons - even echo those of the Nazis).
The opponents of fascism have to be made to see that it is not just a disease of the West, and that brown-skinned Easterners are every bit as capable of creating fascist movements as their blond-haired, blue-eyed cousins. Examine the ideas, Gregory Crouch, and you will see that it is the Islamists who are the ultra-Rightists, not Geert Wilders.
“'I believe the Islamic ideology is a retarded, dangerous one, but I make a distinction,' he said. 'I don’t hate people. I don’t hate Muslims…I am not saying all Muslims are wrong or are terrorists or criminals. You will never hear me say that.'”
Spot on, again. The danger was not Germans, it was Nazism. It wasn’t Russians, it was Communism. The idealogue is the threat, but the real danger lies in the idea.
Geert Wilders gets it.
Posted by: Matamoros at March 22, 2008 11:08 AM
The Gray Lady has become a Shop-Worn Harlot.
Posted by: Pelayo at March 22, 2008 11:12 AM
This site announces a release of the film tomorrow.
http://www.fitnathemovie.co.uk/
Posted by: johndoe at March 22, 2008 11:24 AM
Spot on commentary Mr. Spencer
Posted by: haramfidel at March 22, 2008 11:31 AM
Cowardice has become a virtue. Fear rules the infidels. Irrational fear of terrorism prevents infidels to protect themselves and their civilization from the barbarians.
“If you say the prophet is a war criminal, you say, I hate Muslims,” is another one of these absurd Muslim statements, as if we had an obligation to love a pedophile war criminal, caravan raiding bandit, slave-trading serial rapist.
“Wilders is a little bit crazy" - doesn't that mean we are all crazy because we oppose this cult? Didn't some slimy Muhammeddan spokesman say the same thing about the murdered Theo van Gogh? Wasn't van Gogh crazy because his famous ancestor also suffered some bouts of insanity?
But this is good:
Youssef Azghari, said in an interview. “Because the prophet is a symbol. He was the one who invented the Islam.”
If a soldier of Allah tells you that Muhammad 'invented the Islam' -, that is a pretty powerful statement contrary to the BS about him being the 'messenger of Allah'. If they understand that he is the mere inventor then they are actually well aware of the profits fraud. Interesting stuff!
at March 22, 2008 11:42 AM
Thanks, Robert! We linked you at Liberty Peak Lodge.
Posted by: Irish Cicero at March 22, 2008 11:59 AM
Thanks Miss Darcy! Happy Easter to you too! And to all our fine friends here at JW. : )
I think Geert is the man I've been looking for to stand up to the Orks and give them a firm swat on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. For the praying folks around here, we need to ask God to keep him safe and let him shine, like Martel, Sobieski, Isabella and de la Vallette before him.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 22, 2008 12:22 PM
Excellent publicity! It doesn't matter what these sundry mahometans and their media sycophants say about Wilders. What matters is that, at least in Europe, many people who weren't aware before are aware now, and will be viewing "fitna". Anyone know if this was in the U.S. editions, too?
Posted by: Infidel33 at March 22, 2008 1:15 PM
"Only a nervous liberal complains about hair color."
Not to argue with your main point, but as to this - 15 years ago when I had fuchsia hair it wasn't the liberals who complained about it.
Posted by: non-croyant at March 22, 2008 1:41 PM
It is clear the nonviolent Muslims find the violent Muslims very useful. Criticize them and you will get a knife in the dark or car bomb. The dihmmi in waiting condemn others who are critical because it is safe. It is easy to moralize a path that will not get your throat cut. Look at Gordon Brown and his huge a Muslim mentality.
Posted by: Ruebacca at March 22, 2008 2:02 PM
When it gets to the point where one speaks no evil, hears no evil,sees no evil, means they have left themselves susceptible to losing their Heads.
I feel sorry for the Times staff and their readership who take them seriously.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 22, 2008 3:29 PM
Just release the film on the Web already and let the sparks fly as they will. Islam proving the merits of the Film will cause the reluctant to give it its proper due.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 22, 2008 3:33 PM
"I feel sorry for the Times staff and their readership who take them seriously."
Not here. I fear for the people who are being led by the Times staff and their readership. Given that the Times is "the paper of record" and is used as a guide by all other news outlets as to what stories they should cover and how, that means all of us. We are the ones who will suffer for the stupidity, obtuseness - whatever - of Pinchy Sulzberger and company. The editorial staff and upper management of all of these publications will be safe and sound inside their gated communities and guarded homes. So will a good portion of their readership, who are the doers and shakers. They will never have to reap what they have sown.
Posted by: PMK at March 22, 2008 8:54 PM
PMK
the Truth has made many give give up the Gray Lady knowing the Grecian Formula is but cosmetic. The great body of well documented opinion is slowly eroding. With each wave of deceit washing away a portion of their Castle.
I share your concerns and fears, but I cannot help but feel sorry for them at the same time. Poor judgment and willful deceit is a by product of free will. On can be Human and feel sorrow for them. It just need not last long.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 23, 2008 8:09 AM
flowerknife us,
You're a better person than I am. I can't afford to feel sorry for the Times, any more than I can pity Rev. Wright. I wish they would take their own advice, which they sanctimoniusly gave us after the Clinton impeachment, and just MOVE ON.
at March 23, 2008 12:29 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)