Recently, our Floridian government sponsored a hate campaign against Muslims. Allowed to speak at the campaign was Geert Wilders, maker of the video Fitna in which he shows the Trade Centers blowing up and Quranic verses in the background that "justify" this action by Muslims. For six minutes he spewed hate against us. This was my response to his speech, found here:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/04/freedom-of-speech-text-of-geert-wilders-speech.html. For those of you who think our government is a saint...think again. Postmarked June 2nd, 2009, this rebuttal was a direct response to the speech Wilders gave, and it's happily on its way to our state government. Once again, the very government who is supposed to be "serving" us is now trying to turn people away from Islam by forging lies...and guess who paid for Wilders' hotel stay, research hours, etc? You and me, the same Muslims he condemned. Bye bye tax dollars.
Against Geert Wilders: A Truth Against Lies
Author: Bijani, Munawar Ali
And co-authored by several other contributors
We begin with the name of God, the most kind, the most merciful.
Recently, Geert Wilders, maker of the video Fitna, spoke at the Florida Senate against Islam. This paper serves as an argument against his claims, which we have found to be purposely misleading; however, it is not our intent to downplay Wilders; on the contrary, we would like to extend our appreciation to him for conducting the amount of research he has conducted. Many of the claims he has made are common, and are simply the result of incorrect information or faulty analysis. On the final page, the reader will find a list of sources used by the authors of this paper.
First off, we would like to begin by stating that it is not Islam's goal to dominate the world; rather, Wilders has fallen into the same trap as so many other leaders have: he has mistaken the terrorists as proper bearers of the Islamic ideology. Somalia stoned a rape victim to death, and only whipped the men who raped her; this is in spite of the fact that the Shariah law does not call for killing rape victims--it does not even allow husbands to kill their wives even if they have been found committing adultery (Hadi al-Hakim, Marriage, Questions and Answers Section).
Next, Wilders calls Islam a "totalitarian political ideology" and claims that the Quran calls for war and violence. He also mentions that the Quran calls Jews "pigs". Islam is not a "totalitarian political ideology." In fact, the Quran states very clearly that "There is no compulsion in religion; the truth has been made clear from error" (Quran 2:256). This verse shows us that Islam holds the following view: do not follow an ideology blindly. Towards the end of the Quran, a chapter states: "I worship not that which you worship, Nor will you worship that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping. Nor will you worship that which I worship. To you be your religion, and to me my religion." (Quran 109:2-6). We can clearly see from these verses that Islam invites people to the religion, but if they choose not to join, it is up to them. As we will see later, the battles fought during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) were in self-defense, since it is common fact that during the time of Islam, if one did not have physical strength to lead a movement, the movement would be crushed. We can see this clearly from the Crusades of the early Christian Church; they spread their ideology this way, but it was only after the passing away of the blessed Prophet Jesus (may peace and blessings be upon him.) The Prophet Jesus (PBOH) did not start the Crusades. Similarly, we are seeing the same issue with the Muslim people today. Islam does not support oppression, but yet Saudi Arabia oppresses its women. Concerning this, Bihishti and Bahonar point out that although Islam came to Arabia, after the leader--the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) passed away, the government returned to its corrupted ways; it hired scholars and "paid-agents" to help distort Islam to "build the high castle of their [the government's] own power" (245-246), and thus "the system is used to serve the leaders; the leaders render no service to the system" (246).
Concerning Jews, the Quran does not call them pigs; in fact, it praises Christians and Jews: "Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord…" (Quran 2:62).
In the following verses, we see where Wilders may have thought that the Quran calls Jews monkeys. However, we can clearly see that this is something that has been taken out of context. We produce for you the entire passage: "And (O Children of Israel, remember) when We took your covenant and We raised above you the Mount (saying): "Hold fast to that which We have given you, and remember that which is therein so that you may become Al-Muttaqûn (the pious). Then after that you turned away. Had it not been for the Grace and Mercy of Allah upon you, indeed you would have been among the losers.
65. And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday). We said to them: "Be you monkeys, despised and rejected."
66. So We made this punishment an example to their own and to succeeding generations and a lesson to those who are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious)." Here, we see that the example of "monkeys" was only put on the people of Israel who betrayed prophet Moses (PBOH) after the parting of the Red Sea. This in no way applies to the people of today, if one looks closely at the verses surrounding it. Therefore, the Quran does not call all Jews monkeys; in fact, we see that they will "have their reward from their lord" as well as Muslims and Christians; thus, this notion is merely a context issue. This argument is further supported by the Quran stating "Those who have been expelled from their homes unjustly only because they said: "Our Lord is Allah." - For had it not been that Allah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein the Name of Allah is mentioned much would surely have been pulled down…" (Quran 22:40). Here, we see that Islam regards all places of worship as places "wherein the name of Allah is mentioned much", and there is no distinction made between any of them; it recognizes that all monotheistic religions (including Jews) believe in God, and they are to be respected, not hated. Therefore, we see that it then becomes not fit for this same Quran to turn around and call Jews pigs, since this action is logically impossible, and thus we point back to the context issue we mentioned earlier.
Next, wilders says that the "core problem with Islam is two fold," and the first problem being that Islam has no time scope; everything is relevant anywhere. We do agree with Wilders here that the Quran is not limited in one time. However, this is not to say that all verses apply everywhere. For instance, some verses were revealed for a specific battle, that is all (E.G.8:33, the Battle of Badr).
The second problem Wilders identifies is that the Quran has no room for interpretation; this is not true, according to real Islamic ideology, and numerous sources from the Prophet (SAWH) and his descendants. In order to understand our point of view on this, the reader should consider the Islamic history. During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH,) the Prophet served as the guide to the Quran. Notice that we used the word "guide." To say that the Quran leaves no room for interpretation is like saying Calculus must be learned by the book, with no professor. As we stated earlier, some verses of the Quran were revealed during a specific battle, and meant for that battle alone. Thus, it is only natural to have someone who is learned in Islamic knowledge and history to guide the people to understanding the Quran--otherwise, they will use these verses for places in which they are not proper. After the death of the Prophet (SAWH,) his son in law, Ali (PBOH) was the rightful successor to the leadership of Islam. However, Abu Bakr betrayed the Prophet, and took the leadership for himself. This, our dear readers, is why the people of Islam are so corrupted today. Abu Bakr was not fit to lead Islam with knowledge and understanding of the Quran (Bihishti and Bahonar 245), and the Sunni sect follows him. As you probably know, today the Sunni sect holds an 80% majority against a 20% "followers of Ali (Shiah)" people. The Somali government was Sunni, so was Saddam Hussein, and so is Saudi Arabia. The Islam they follow happened because of this "no room for interpretation" ideology--and look where they are today.
Wilders goes on to quote Prime Minister Erdogan from Turkey: "There is no moderate Islam, Islam is Islam." The Turkish minister was correct; but Wilders has used his statement in a fabricated manner. When the minister said this, he meant "Islam is Islam everywhere, at every time. You do not pick and choose what you follow and what you do not follow." Of course, to the minister, this meant "Jihad prevails everywhere," but once again this is according to the Sunni traditions of Islam. The real Islam has recorded a narration from the Prophet (SAWH): "A man asked the Prophet once after coming back from a battle, 'Have we completed jihad?' The Prophet replied, 'This was only minor jihad. The major jihad is that jihad [struggle] you do with yourself; staying away from sin, praying, etc.'" In other words, the Prophet was saying that anyone can throw fists or stones or kill someone; it is not difficult, and Islam does not center around this effortless thing, and the slaughter of non-Muslims. Bihishti and Bahonar point out that jihad should be done for "the assistance of the helpless and the oppressed; Jihad for gradual perfection, culture, knowledge and virtue; and lastly Jihad against one's own egoism, which is the most important and according to the holy Prophet of Islam, "Jihad Akbar" ['major jihad']" (355).
Wilders then goes on to "describe" the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) by calling him a pedophile, conqueror, and warlord. We have already quoted a narration from the Prophet above which disproves this claim. Further, if the reader looks into Islamic history, they will find that most of the battles fought were in self-defense (as we have also explained above,) since Islam only allows Muslims to fight back, not to aggress: " Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe" (Quran 9:13).
The reader may now point to verse 9:5 from the Quran, which states: " So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Quran 9:5). This verse was part of a larger scope, however, and this becomes obvious when the reader turns their attention to verse 9:1: "(This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement." This shows us that this chapter (chapter 9) is just that--terms and conditions of an agreement made with the people of that time; it lays down guidelines for the Muslims of that period, and tells them what to do should the disbelievers break their agreement; it does not justify killing of nonbelievers today.
When Wilders refers to the Prophet as a "pedophile," we are assuming he is referring to the marriage of the Prophet to Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr. Aisha was given to the Prophet as a gift, which was a common practice during that time in Arabia, to form alliances between tribes; the Prophet did not marry Aisha in the traditional sense, so Wilders' claim is negated. In adition, according to several sources, Aisha was baligh when the Prophet (SAWH) married her, which makes sense since the Prophet (SAWH) would not commit forbidden acts.
Next, Wilders quotes Muhammad as stating that he will conquer until everyone is submissive. Our respected reader, consider the verses we quoted for you above, where the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) says "To you is your religion, and to me is mine." We do not see how Wilders can possibly draw a conclusion that "Muhammad's behavior in the Quran" can "inspire jehadists" to kill people, if this was his behavior. The quote Wilders has brought forth has no Quranic relevance, and we take it as a mere fabrication by the government of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman in trying to debase the Prophet (SAWH) to justify their leaderships, and a further fabrication by Wilders to attempt to prove his point with faulty logic.
Unfortunately, Wilders has used, once again, the Middle Eastern ideology and called it Islam by quoting Ayatollah Khomeini. Islam does not teach to "kill and be killed for Allah" since even this killing can be unjust. In several places in the Quran Allah warns Muslims to "not exceed the bounds."
Next, Wilders makes one of the biggest errors in his analysis. His so-called "Al-Haya doctrine" is apparently a sign of danger. In our research, we discovered that this doctrine can be paraphrased as follows: If a Muslim is being hindered from practicing his or her faith, he or she is advised to migrate to a different land where the practicing of religion is free on him or her. The Prophet Muhammad migrated to Medina for this very reason, and the Puritan Christians migrated to the "New World" for this very reason as well. We have already shown the reader the Quranic view on other religions--"Neither shall any fear come upon them, nor shall they grieve" (Quran 2:62), yet Wilders believes that the migration of a religion that teaches religious tolerance is dangerous. This migration law under Islam is not for conquest, but simply to get away from oppression.
Wilders goes on to "coin" a term: Eurabia. Here, the authors of this paper agree with Wilders; indeed, the "Eurabiation" of a nation is evil. However, although Wilders' claim is correct, his reasons are incorrect. He calls veils "evil phenomena," and claims that Islam likes "honored" killings of women. In reality, the Islamic views are quite different from the Arabian views.
We start off by explaining the veil. Indeed, today it is seen as a sign of oppression and cruelty; however, we stress that this is only, once again, due to Arabia's fabrication of Islam. Our honored reader, consider the following verse from the Quran: "O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be
recognized and not annoyed [harassed]. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful" (Quran 33:59); and "And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known; and turn to Allah all of you, O believers! so that you may be successful" (Quran 24:31). Based on these verses, we can deduce that:
- The veil has been prescribed to keep women from being harassed.
- The veil has been prescribed so that women "may be recognized" viz. they are not seen as mere objects of physical pleasure, since their sexual attractions (IE. Breasts, curves, etc) are covered; this allows a person to talk to them and get to know them before making any biased judgments based on their physical attractions.
Considering the points made above, we acknowledge that the so-called "Islamic country of the world"--Saudi Arabia--is not an example of the real Islamic view. The veil is prescribed on women, but for their protection only; the Quran and the Hadith (narrations) by the Prophet (SAWH) and his family do not support publicly beating women for not wearing the veil; in fact, the man who raped the woman or looked at her so as to make her uncomfortable even though she was veiled would be the criminal. This, our dear reader, is the same reason why the actions of the former "Islamic" Somali government are not supported by Islam: they stoned a rape victim to death, while beating the four men who raped her very lightly. As Rizvi points out, most Western books (or theses) "reflect the Arab view of female sexuality and not the Islamic view" (31). In other words, the Arab view--namely the beating of women for not veiling themselves--is not the Islamic view.
Wilders talks about several points in the rest of his speech, but we have reputed most of them already. We will now select the highlights of the rest of his speech and conclude thereafter.
Wilders repeatedly claims that women asking for separate gymnasium hours, opposite genders asking for separate campus housing, etc. is a bad thing. If we consider the reasoning behind this separation from a logical perspective, we see that it is, in fact, a noble thing to do. Firstly, the people themselves are asking for this separation; they are not being forced to do so. Secondly, the reader should recall an argument that we gave above concerning the harassment of women. Women, today, are looking to be respected--not because they are CEOs of corporations--rather, they are looking to be respected in a metaphysical manner viz. elevated beyond objects of physical pleasure. We suspect that the main reason people has a problem with separate gymnasium hours for men and women is because the men would prefer looking at a woman's sexual beauty versus respecting her. We see that gymnasiums allow both genders to walk around showing quite a bit of their bodies viz. there is no modest dress code, and this has become acceptable among today's society. Because of this liberal approach, when a man meets a woman at a gymnasium, the first thing he sees of her--and, we might add, he enjoys seeing of her--is her physical beauty. Already, he has degraded her to a sexual object, and any moves made for a "serious" relationship afterwards will most likely be done with the intentions of getting as close to her as possible. Today, women recognize this, and the only faith that gives them freedom from being sexual objects is Islam: "So that they may be recognized and not annoyed [harassed]," and yet discourages women from being tainted as "evil" because of their sexual beauty, as we discuss below.
Wilders' fear of separation may come from the earlier religious philosophies that run on an "all or nothing" basis: total abstinence. However, it is interesting to note that Islam does not encourage abstinence; in reality, it condemns it. The Islamic view of separation is paraphrased as follows: if one is not in a legal relationship with someone from the opposite gender, both should not display any sexual attractions; however, if they enter a legal relationship (I.E.: a relationship done by Islamic standards,) then they are free to do as they wish (Mutahhari Chapter 1). This is the balance that those who cry out against veils do not understand, and it is this balance that women, of all people, are understanding and enjoying. Rizvi comments on this view by stating that Islam teaches "its followers not to suppress their sexual urges, rather to fulfill them but in a responsible way" (21).
Wilders goes on to call Islam a Totalitarian ideology. We have already shown the balance present in Islam, and we have also shown how Islam is governed by a "give the message and leave" philosophy: " To you be your religion, and to me my religion" (Quran 109:6).
We have also shown to the reader the real purpose of the veil, and how it is made to protect women, and not oppress them, but Saudi Arabia and other so-called Islamic countries are fabricating these elements. Further, we have shown that Islam does not wish to dominate; it wishes to coexist (see Quran 2:62,) and the "Jihadist" political ideology is not supported by Islam.
With respect to jihad, we have shown that the more important jihad is that struggle one does against his or herself, and not physically fighting and killing other people (Bihishti and Bahonar 355); we have quoted a narration from the Prophet (SAWH) concerning this. In addition, we have shown that Islam is not a Totalitarian political ideology, but rather an ideology that wishes to coexist with other religions.
We hope that the reader has gained some insight to Islam, and realizes that Wilders claims are those made by his misunderstanding and fabrication of the real teachings of Islam; it is our hope that the reader has understood the actual Islam, and dismisses Wilders claims. His claims have no credibility against the authentic teachings of Islam, which are those taught by the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH)and his descendants. Wilders' claims are only valid if Arabia and Islam become interchangeable, which is not logically possible. In other words, Wilders' speech should have rightfully been labeled as "speaking out against Arabia and the Middle Eastern Arab tradition," not a speech "against Islam." We hope that this distinction has become clear to the reader. Not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs.
References
Behishti, Ayatullah Dr. Muhammad Hosayni, and Hujjatul-Islam Dr. Javad Bahonar. Philosophy of Islam. Salt Lake City: Islamic Publications, 1982.
Hadi al-Hakim, Hujjatul Islam Sayyid Abdul, et al. A Code Of Practice for Muslims in the West. Trans. Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi. Ed. Najim al-Khafaji, BA. London: Imam Ali Foundation, 1998. 5 May 2009. <http://www.shiamasjid.com/books/Code/index.htm>.
Mutahhari, Murtadha. The Islamic Modest Dress. Qum, Islamic Republic of Iran: Dar us Seqafe, N/A. Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project. 7 May 2009. <http://www.al-islam.org/modestdress/title.htm>.
Rizvi, Sayyid Muhammad. Marriage and Morals in Islam
. British Columbia: Vancouver Islamic Educational Foundation, 1990.
