Geert Wilders' recent speech in the Dutch parliament sums up Islam pretty well. What exactly, as Wilders' asked, is 'moderate' about a fascist paganism, born in the Arabian desert in the 7th century? What is modern about an ideology whose 'laws' [snicker here]; were created 800 years ago and have not evolved since? If England was still feudal and controlled by landed barons under 13th century legal edicts, would we now term that construct 'moderately modern'? Insanity!
Wilders' exact words in that historic speech were, 'As Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said the other day, and I quote, "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that's it".... Islam is in pursuit of dominance. It wishes to exact its imperialist agenda by force on a worldwide scale (sura 8:39). This is clear from European history. Fortunately, the first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at Poitiers in 732; the second in Vienna in 1683. Madam Speaker, let us ensure that the third Islamic invasion, which is currently in full spate, will be stopped too in spite of its insidious nature and notwithstanding the fact that, in contrast to the 8th and 17th centuries, it has no need for an Islamic army because the scared "dhimmis" in the West, also those in Dutch politics, have left their doors wide open to Islam and Muslims.'
Like Churchill, Wilders knows his topic and his enemy quite well.
Wilders is vilified in the EU press as 'extreme' and a 'right winger' [gasp! Oh no!, Churchill was as well you might recall] whatever these terms mean. In fact they are used to slander and tarnish the object and deride certain viewpoints.
In essence such terms of intolerance towards those who view reality for what it is, have no meaning. Wilders quotes from the Turkish Prime Minister – you know that Muslim country which wants to get into the EU – that Islam is a total concept and is immoderate. He could have quoted from a 1000 different Islamic political-ideological sources stating the same. Does that make Wilders extreme? Does that make his speech on the intolerant fascistic nature of Islam, immoderate? How do the cultural marxists and chattering idiots of the relativity club rationalise that one?
Muslims themselves describe Islam as intolerant, immoderate and universal, yet those who criticise the fascist ideology of Mohammed are 'extreme' or 'racist' [Islam is an ideology stupid, not a race] ? Interesting.
As Ibn Warraq a former Muslim has written, hatred of 'others' is an endemic and genetic component of Erdogan's 'real Islam':
“....nearly all the most influential Muslim thinkers, such as Hasan al Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Abu’l A’la al-Maududi, accept the premise of anti-Islamic conspiration by Jews and Europeans, as do most of the preachers, scholars , journalists, and politicians. The very constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran refers to plotting, when it describes the White Revolution (the Shah’s land-reform program) as an "American plot … a ploy to stabilize the foundation of the colonialist government [of the Shah] and strengthen Iran’s …ties with world imperialism." This constitution also promises that non-Muslims will be well-treated if they refrain from getting "in conspiracies hatched against the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Muslims of the Middle East fear two main conspirators, Jews and Imperialists. Jews are seen as a threat to the whole of humanity, and are considered responsible for every evil in the world, from assassinations of Lincoln, McKinley, and Kennedy, to the French and Russian Revolution, and so on. As Robert Wistrich put it, for the Muslim Brethren of Egypt, "Of all the myriad enemies of Islam …Jewry represents the ultimate abomination, evil in its purest ontological form." and as Daniel Pipes adds, and the same applies for many other Muslims, for example, Sayyid Qutb, the very influential Egyptian thinker, wrote, "Through the lengthy centuries – regretfully – [the Jews] poisoned the Islamic heritage in a way that may itself be revealed only with the effort of centuries."
While Mustafa Mashur, another Egyptian thinker sees Jews behind "every weird, deviant principle" in history.”
Qutb, Maududi, Bin Laden, Khomenei, Arafat, Hussein, Nassar, these and other activists and leaders of the Arab-Islamic world have routinely called for the eradication of Jews, Americans, foreigners, imperialists, capitalists and non-believers. It was no accident that the Arab-Islamic world allied itself first with Hitler, and then with the Soviet Union. There is much commonality in the fascist programs of Nazism, Communism and Islamism.
What is moderate about this?
On the site thereligionofpeace almost 11.000 attacks by Muslims since 9-11-2001 have been counted and sourced. This equates into approximately 140 attacks per month, world-wide, or about 4 to 5 per day. What other 'faith' has such a record? What other ideology is murdering or maiming 1 million people over 7 years or approximately 400 people per day? The answer is none, yet we are to believe that moderate Islam exists?
What is moderate about this fascism?
If moderate Muslims do exist, than how many are there? Who are they? Where are they and what power do they have? What are they doing to combat extremist Islamism? What exactly are they doing to reform the Koran, Sharia law and the anti-modern, anti-Western, anti-Jew and anti-White racism and supremacism which litters their history, 'culture' and writings?
If Islam is moderate than show us why this is true. The evidence is pretty clear that Islam is immoderate, intolerant and quite fascistic. If Wilders and others are wrong, than prove it – don't just yell that all matters are relative and ergo Islam is wonderful. That is for fools and knaves.