Geert Wilders Quotes

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. Islamic country newspapers however, when it comes to what is perceived as material insulting to Islam, as typified by this editorial, feel that their religion should never be insulted despite the fact that Saudi Arabian media constantly insult Christianity and Judaism. Their justification of this gross double standard is that Islam is the “true” religion.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. Westerners came to the support of Denmark. The United States which usually supports freedom of the press made this veiled criticism of the Danish Newspaper.

Rushdie was commenting on the Danish Cartoons that had been published the year before depicting the Islamic Prophet Muhammad to the great distress of some fundamentalist Muslims some of whom orchestrated riots in many countries involving much property destruction and some loss of life. See {590918} as an example of the concern.

Just days before September 11. While in America, such a remark would just be considered an insensitive and inappropriate utterance, in France, he was brought before the courts and threatened with jail and a large monetary fine under a 1972 French law which bans hate speech. See {595311}

This is a typical law in most modern Muslim countries. Essentially, Muslim Sharia Law prohibits any insult to the Prophet, the Koran and other sayings of the Prophet. This law of course, violates the UN Declaration of Human rights and freedom oriented counties tend to deride the restrictions of freedom of speech and expression. However, to show that the Muslim nation is being “fair”, laws like this one supposedly “protect” people of other religions from the wounding of religious feelings when their religion is slandered. Christians and other non-Muslims are prosecuted commonly. At the same time, ultra-fundamentalist Muslim clerics and teachers at religious schools commonly preach hate and desecration of Christianity, Judiasm, and Hinduism commonly. None are ever prosecuted.

The Taliban opposed all education except orthodox Muslim religious education.

Islamic modernists like Serageldin are many among the educated Muslims but their views are often drowned out by the violence and extremist statements of the fundamentalists. This quotation is similar to statements by American Supreme Court Justices but surprises us when coming from a Muslim. But there are many who are as much committed to freedom of speech as most Americans. Even in America, some politicians have tried to make incitement a crime. John Adams’ Alien & Sedition Acts and laws of WWi are examples. However, in no Islamic nation have reformers had incitement removed as a crime as of 2011.

800,000 Rwandans were murdered with machetes and shovels less than 20 years before. The ethnic genocide was triggered by various hate speech in rallies and over the radio. This type of speech was made illegal in Rwanda, not unlike Germany, Turkey, Israel, Singapore, and many other solid democracies but they do not have as strong a protection of free speech as in America.

Part of the right to freedom of speech is the right to criticize, disparage or insult. However, there are some people in the world who do not believe in freedom of speech or expression and not only believe that certain types of expression are blasphemous and sinful, but some believe that it is their religious duty to kill the blasphemer. In this case a film was made that was not only intellectually an attack on Islam but it was done in such a manner that most orthodox Muslims were insulted and offended that their Prophet and religion were both insulted in a blasphemous manner. It was a film that was very much in poor taste, insensitive and gross. In the Islamic world, some extremists use incidents that they call blasphemy to whip up large crowds who riot, destroy and in many cases kill innocent people who have nothing to do with the alleged blasphemy except that their employer might be a company in the same nation as the blasphemer. These fanatics also hold governments responsible for blasphemy if they do not violate their own laws and constitutions and interfere with their citizens right to freedom of speech and expression. For people like Bollinger, this raises a terribly difficult situation and as he points out in this quotations free speech can have serous repercussions almost anywhere in the world. Others observe that every time we even discuss the potential repercussions, the enemies of freedom of expression win, and have a chilling effect on the rest of the world. They urge ignoring the consequences and avoid rewarding the enemies of freedom by giving them an influence on our freedoms and practices.