so Beck attacked Geert Wilders. if Geert were really far right wing extreme then why is Beck endorsing his position on his own show? Beck is a total hypocrite and is unstable. Beck since when has the far right supported gay rights and stood up to Shariah law to protect artists like Theo Van Gogh who was also gay? Looks like the Saudi Royalty really did buy a lot of Rupert’s ass through his dhimmi son’s Ivy League connections.
Wilders has come out strongly in condemnation of far-right European parties like Front National and Vlaams Belang, suggesting that the Dutch MP’s beliefs, while inconsistent with regard to the Qur’an and Islam, are significantly more complicated than the pundits portray them. Wilders, who calls himself an advocate of freedom, has argued that the Dutch prohibition of Hitler’s Mein Kampf is contradictory when the Qur’an, Islam’s holy book, calls for violence. His provoking film, Fitna, lays out his case that Islam maintains violent elements. Wilders’ criticism of the Islamic faith should lead to civilized discussion on theology as opposed to calls for censorship and labels which attempt to stigmatize. While I disagree with the position of banning literature, especially as it may open the door for banning both religious and secular texts, Wilders undoubtedly has a right to freedom of speech.
The American media ought to be monitoring Geert Wilders’ trial in which he is accused of “the incitement to hatred and discrimination.” Mr. Wilders’ trial has more implications than many may think. Wilders is being persecuted for voicing provocative ideas that should be discussed rather than censored, a point which Fox News clearly missed on Monday evening.
Beck’s criticism of Wilders is pretty dismissible since the populist TV commentator does not appear particularly versed in European affairs. Indeed, in the video linked at his name, Beck erroneously identifies French politician Dominique de Villepin as “far right” and then mispronounces his name – in fingers down a blackboard fashion – as if he had confused the Chirac protégé with the truly fascist Jean Marie le Pen. Maybe he had. Only his producers, who have served him poorly here, know for sure. And maybe even they don’t, which is the problem. (Beck should also have another look at Jonah Goldberg’s book and at Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom before he makes such simplistic conclusions about fascism, the left and the right across the pond.)
The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.
Wilders is making a theological point here — his contention is that Islam, as set forth in the teachings of the Koran, “commands Muslims to exercise jihad. . .to establish shariah law [and]. . .to impose Islam on the entire world.” I’m no scholar of Islam, but I believe Wilders is correct. To show otherwise, one would have to explain away portions of the Koran. It is not enough just to call Wilders’ interpretation of that book “narrow.”
“if Wilders is correct, and the line between Islam and Islamism is as blurred as the Dutchman posits, then we in the West are in very deep trouble indeed.”
Wilders also makes many conservatives uncomfortable because, as Roger notes, he called for banning the Koran in Holland the way Mein Kampf is restricted in that country, to scholars in libraries — a step I oppose. Wilders has said he never really wanted a true banning and that he made his call to give publicity to this issue in his country.
If so, this was a misguided way to go about generating publicity. But it doesn’t seriously detract from Roger’s conclusion that Wilders “is a highly intelligent man on the front lines of the struggle for a secular and free Europe and should not be dismissed – or misunderstood.”