PDA

Bekijk Volledige Versie : "My Response To Geert Wilders " By Dr. Habib Siddiqui



The Alchemist
07-07-11, 21:22
"My Response To Geert Wilders " By Dr. Habib Siddiqui

Source : iviews.com,July 07, 2011


iViews.com - My Response to Geert Wilders (http://www.iviews.com/Articles/articles.asp?ref=IV1107-4752)





You say that Islam is opposed to freedom. Freedom to do what - harm and insult others - something that you have mastered, or colonize, kill and plunder vast territories of Asia, Africa and Latin America - something that the Dutch and other western governments committed to enrich them? Islam says that God has given inborn disposition to human minds to shape themselves either towards good ....

My Response to Geert Wilders
7/7/2011 - Opinion Political - Article Ref: IV1107-4752
Number of comments: 3
Opinion Summary: Agree:3 Disagree:0 Neutral:0
By: Dr. Habib Siddiqui
Iviews* -




In his website, Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician, posted an article - My message to Muslims, which deserve some response. Here below is my response to him.

Mr. Wilders,
In your message to Muslims you mentioned about your unpleasant experience visiting Egypt in 1982 as an 18-year old almost penniless student. Any wise person would have advised you not to undertake such a journey into a foreign land when you can't speak the language of the people you visited and don't have any local guide or acquaintance to help you, let alone being penniless. It was a stupid decision. And yet, as your first impression you were 'overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of its people.' Doesn't it say a lot about the defining character of these warm-hearted people who in spite of their dire poverty and living under one of the worst despots of our time made you feel so welcome?

You were surprised to see how frightened people had felt when it was announced that the Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak was coming to visit Sharm el-Sheikh. Is it difficult to understand how this western puppet was perceived in his country? You wrote, "It was a weird experience; Mubarak is not considered the worst of the Islamic tyrants..." Mubarak was a tyrant who did not follow the dictates of the Qur'an. If he had, he should have known that tyranny is one of the worst sins in Islam. [See my books - Islamic Wisdom, and Wisdom of Mankind - for many citations on this subject.] And yet, like a brain-dead moron who has learning disabilities, you equated the attitude of the Egyptian people towards Mubarak with those of "the 7th century Arabs ... in the presence of Muhammad, who, as several verses describe, "cast terror into their hearts' (suras 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12)." Bravo! What a discovery!

You may like to read my book - Muhammad: the Messenger of Allah - An Exposition of His Life for Curious Western Readers - (available in the Amazon.com) to judge how Muhammad's (S) contemporary Arabs felt about him. The poem below from poet Hassan ibn Thabit (R), an erstwhile ardent enemy of Islam, is sufficient to belie your allegations.

By God, no woman has conceived and given birth
To one like the Apostle, the Prophet and guide of his people;
Nor has God created among his creatures
One more faithful to his sojourner or his promise
Than he who was the source of light,
Blessed in his deeds, just and upright. (Sirat Rasulallah by Muhammad Ibn Ishaq)

As a diehard friend of Israel, you should know that one of the great Rabbis once advised a charlatan: "Don't get too excited about the Talmud unless you are a believing Jew who leads a kosher life." Any student of the tafsir and tawil (interpretation) of the Qur'an would likewise tell you that the Qur'anic verses are not to be cherry picked to suit one's whims. They have a Speaker, an audience, time, place and context.

The verse 8:12 was revealed in the context of the Battle of Badr when the pagan (Mushriq) Arabs from Makkah came to attack the nascent community of believers in the outskirts of Madinah. In the said verse, Allah inspires the Angels saying: "When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve."

The verse 8:60, cited by you, likewise is all about making necessary preparations to defend against the attack of enemies. If it had not been for the defense of the faith put up by those early Muslims, there would not have been any Muslim today. The verse 33:26 and the preceding ones are about the Battle of Khunduq when a section of Jews living in Madinah violated their treaty of peaceful coexistence with Muslims and committed treason by aiding the Arab Mushriqs. It reads: "And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts." They were punished for their treason.

Your reference to verse 59:12 again shows your dismal ignorance. It says, "If they are expelled, never will they go out with them; and if they are attacked (in fight), they will never help them; and if they do help them, they will turn their backs; so they will receive no help." Here Allah is talking about the hypocrites amongst the Muslims who aligned themselves with the enemies of Islam. If a fight broke out, these hypocrites true to their innate nature would even abandon their clients.

So, I fail to see the connection of those verses in relation to how Egyptian Muslims felt about their tyrant ruler - Mubarak, who behaved like the Pharaoh. They were terrorized by Mubarak, much like how the German Jews must have felt about the visit of Hitler and his Nazi henchmen to their towns.

During your visit to Cairo, you found the city dirty and its inhabitants poor compared to Israel. Your instincts told you that 'it had something to do with the different cultures of Israel and Egypt.' Comparing any Israeli city with a mega city like Cairo that is inhabited by more than ten million people is silly and naive. In spite of all the wealth that America enjoys, a visit to any major city, including my own one in Philadelphia, would show gaping holes of poverty, crime and filth. There are places you won't like to walk into and then there are places you would rather avoid driving through even during the daytime. There are many homeless people here in the USA that sleep on the footpaths and who eat out of trash cans near restaurants and grocery stores. Never mind the high unemployment situation these days, even in the early 1980s while living in California I noticed such sad incidents first hand. If these be the reality inside the most prosperous nation on earth, do these failings speak about American culture or some other more obvious indicators? I am sure Holland is not immune from such problems either.

If you are thinking about the economic aid that Egypt receives from the USA, you ought to know that the annual aid is equivalent to a per capita share of a meager $2.60 (2009) in a country with a Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) of $5,400 (in 2008). That is less than 0.05 percent. In contrast, the per capita share that Israel received from the USA - governmental and non-governmental - is more than a hundred times. While ordinary Egyptians remained jobless and hungry, the puppet regime of Mubarak was selling natural gas to Israel at less than a fair market price, let alone charging too little for use of the Suez Canal. It was simply too convenient to have this brutal and anti-people dictator stay in power, a process that was to continue for nearly three decades, thanks to the material support provided by Israel and other western governments. It does not take a genius to understand why ordinary Egyptians felt betrayed by the so-called bastions of democracy. Yes, there was that 'conspiracy' to keep Mubarak in power.

You mentioned that as a dirt poor traveler, you drank untreated water which caused diarrhea. You went to a hostel and rented a spot on the floor for two dollars a day. You complain about the miserable state of the hostel, but forget that at that paltry sum, you should have considered yourself lucky to have found a roof over your head. I doubt if you could rent any space in 1982 for that cheap price in Holland. You audaciously complain: "Once Egypt had been the most advanced civilization on earth. Why had it not progressed along with the rest of the world?"

One can only pity a foolish penniless traveler like you who goes to visit a foreign country and then complains about his miserable condition! Granted that Egypt has not 'progressed' much, but can you honestly say that under similar conditions a visitor to your native Holland would have received better service? Whom are you kidding?
=======

Mr. Wilders, for Egypt's lack of 'progress', whatever that means, you lashed out at Muslims by quoting Winston Churchill, a British soldier and war correspondent for the British Raj who later became Great Britain's Prime Minister. You quote Churchill as saying, "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it... No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."

Haiti is one of the poorest countries in our planet, and this, in spite of her unmistakable Christian culture. Is Christianity to be blamed for her lack of progress? How about Ethiopia, Central African Republic, the Solomon Islands, Zimbabwe, Liberia and Congo - six of the ten poorest countries in the world - all with Christian majority population?

Well, such bigotry ridden words from the mouth of the foremost colonist of his time should not surprise anyone. Lest we forget, it was Churchill who as the Prime Minister starved millions of Indians to death in the Bengal famine of 1943. He brought this holocaust - arguably the first and the worst of the 20th century - upon these people and yet had a selective amnesia not to mention anything about this monumental crime in his self-serving six-volume memoir "The Second World War" for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. (According to Dr. Gideon Polya some 6 to 7 million people died in the province of Bengal and her contiguous provinces as a result of the famine that lasted from 1942 to 1945.)

The 'man-made' famine has long been one of the darkest chapters of the British Raj. In her book "Churchill's Secret War", Madhusree Mukerjee, like a good problem-solving engineer, uncovered evidence that Churchill was directly responsible for the appalling suffering. Analysis of World War II cabinet meetings, forgotten ministry records and personal archives show that some of India's grain was also exported to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) to meet needs there, even though the island wasn't experiencing the same hardship; Australian wheat sailed past Indian cities (where the bodies of those who had died of starvation littered the streets) to depots in the Mediterranean and the Balkans; and offers of American and Canadian food aid were turned down. India was not permitted to use its own sterling reserves, or indeed its own ships, to import food. And because the British government paid inflated prices in the open market to ensure supplies, grain became unaffordable for ordinary Indians. Lord Wavell, appointed Viceroy of India that fateful year, considered the Churchill government's attitude to India 'negligent, hostile and contemptuous.' "It wasn't a question of Churchill being inept: sending relief to Bengal was raised repeatedly and he and his close associates thwarted every effort," Mukerjee wrote. "The United States and Australia offered to send help but couldn't because the war cabinet was not willing to release ships. And when the US offered to send grain on its own ships, that offer was not followed up by the British," she added.

Churchill was a racist and a bigot. He derided Gandhi as a 'half-naked holy man' and once told the Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion (Hinduism)." The famine was their (Indians) own fault, he declared at a war-cabinet meeting, for 'breeding like rabbits.'

In spite of his hostile remarks against Muslims, it is well known amongst researchers that Churchill favored Islam over Hinduism. "Winston's racist hatred was due to his loving the empire in the way a jealous husband loves his trophy wife: he would rather destroy it than let it go," wrote Mukerjee.

The Alchemist
07-07-11, 21:45
Zie het vervolg in de bovenstaande link

That vulgar idiotic ignorant ...fascist does not really deserve any answer , just a slap in the face or a kick in the ass

Wizdom
10-07-11, 00:08
Wilders.... Geen commentaar....

Harts intelligentie
10-07-11, 01:37
Wilders.... Geen commentaar....

Precies :lol:

Slinger
10-07-11, 12:09
Zie het vervolg in de bovenstaande link

That vulgar idiotic ignorant ...fascist does not really deserve any answer , just a slap in the face or a kick in the ass

Die Sidiqui doet anders heel wat moeite om hem te antwoorden, en jij doet moeite om dat verhaal te plaatsen. Hoe dan ook, het stuk geeft helemaal geen goede weerlegging van Geerts opmerkingen.

DNA
10-07-11, 15:39
That was just for the record, silly

DNA
10-07-11, 15:44
That was just for the record, silly

men deed toch wel veel moeite om nazisme, fascisme, communisme ...te verslaan dus , die achterlijk fascist van je stelt niks voor in vergelijking dus

Islam zal wel de rest verslaan & het laatst woord hebben dus

Slinger
10-07-11, 20:29
That was just for the record, silly

men deed toch wel veel moeite om nazisme, fascisme, communisme ...te verslaan dus , die achterlijk fascist van je stelt niks voor in vergelijking dus

Islam zal wel de rest verslaan & het laatst woord hebben dus

Maar dan moet het islamofascisme wel eerst ten onder gaan.

Wizdom
11-07-11, 12:31
Die Sidiqui doet anders heel wat moeite om hem te antwoorden, en jij doet moeite om dat verhaal te plaatsen. Hoe dan ook, het stuk geeft helemaal geen goede weerlegging van Geerts opmerkingen.

Waar is je argumentatie... Of is dit jou niveau?

Harts intelligentie
11-07-11, 14:05
Waar is je argumentatie... Of is dit jou niveau?

haha

je vraagt te veel van die belachelijk hilarisch idioot

je weet wel dat hij & argumenten niet samen gaan haha

holle rhetoriek = argumenten volgens hem

Eric de Blois
12-07-11, 01:54
Islam zal wel de rest verslaan & het laatst woord hebben dus

Een soort overheersen dus. De godsdienst van de 'vrede'. En ja die 'vrede' komt er pas zodra de vijanden zijn 'verslagen'. Nou zo'n vorm van 'vrede' is weinig aantrekkelijk voor niet moslims'. Het woord van de profeet opleggen aan iedereen, met of zonder instemming. Dat is nog eens een vorm van anti-multiculturisme en onderdrukking. Je geeft wilders met je eigen verklaring gewoon het grootste gelijk van de wereld.

Harts intelligentie
12-07-11, 02:46
Een soort overheersen dus. De godsdienst van de 'vrede'. En ja die 'vrede' komt er pas zodra de vijanden zijn 'verslagen'. Nou zo'n vorm van 'vrede' is weinig aantrekkelijk voor niet moslims'. Het woord van de profeet opleggen aan iedereen, met of zonder instemming. Dat is nog eens een vorm van anti-multiculturisme en onderdrukking. Je geeft wilders met je eigen verklaring gewoon het grootste gelijk van de wereld.

nee, je begrijpt er niks van zoals gebruikelijk of zoals meestaal het geval met je is dus & het kan me absoluut niet schelen wat je don-quichotte -achtig met zijn imaginaire vijanden tegen wind molens vechtend fascist al dan niet zou "denken " over islam = irrelevent = irrationeel onwerkelijk populistisch machiavellistisch pragmatisch opportunnistisch propaganda ....pfff...

silly pathetic tragic -hilarious emotional black mail haha

dacht je dat joden bijv enig moer gaven om wat Hitler over ze dacht ?

dat was dus destemeer reden om nazisme te bestrijden want :

alle vormen van nazisme, fascisme, zionazisme, racisme, sectarianisme , ethnicisme, xenofobie, slavernij, paternalisme , imperialisme , extremisme , Eurocentrisme, alle vormen van idolaterie ...zijn DE mensonwaardig verpersoonlijking of "reincarnaties " van ...het kwaad

want :

all forms of fascists or nazis, zionazis .... do not need "reasons ", they just make them up

their own ideologies are "reasons " enough for them

P.S.: Islam zal inderdaad al zijn vijanden verslaan & het laatst woord hebben = zal zegevieren = het goede zal zegevieren over het kwaad maar islam wordt aan niemand opgelegd zelfs dan

Eric de Blois
12-07-11, 03:24
nee, je begrijpt er niks van zoals gebruikelijk of zoals meestaal het geval met je is dus & het kan me absoluut niet schelen wat je don-quichotte-achtig met zijn imaginaire vijanden tegen wind molens vechtend fascist al dan niet zou "denken" over islam = irrelevent = irrationeel onwerkelijk populistisch machiavellistisch pragmatisch opportunnistisch propaganda ....pfff...silly pathetic tragic-hilarious emotional black mail haha dacht je dat joden bijv enig moer gaven om wat Hitler over ze dacht? dat was dus destemeer reden om nazisme te bestrijden want: alle vormen van nazisme, fascisme, zionazisme ...als DE verpersoonlijking of "reincarnaties " van ...het kwaad all forms of fascists or nazis, zionazis.... do not need "reasons ", they just make them up their own ideologies are "reasons" enough for them

P.S.: Islam zal inderdaad al zijn vijanden verslaan & het laatst woord hebben = zal zegevieren = het goede zal zegevieren over het kwaad maar islam wordt aan niemand opgelegd zelfs dan

Bevestig je weer hetzelfde. En als - zoals jij zegt - de islam al zijn vijanden zal verslaan en het laatste woord zal hebben, is er voor andere opvattingen dus géén ruimte meer. Die zijn dan óf verslagen als vijanden van de islam óf gedwongen zich te voegen naar het heersende gezag. Dan kun je wel zeggen dat de islam aan niemand zal worden opgelegd, maar als de islam inderdaad het laatste woord heeft is er dus geen alternatieve boodschap meer en daarmee geen ruimte voor andersdenkenden. Dat komt dichtbij 'opleggen'. Bovendien zijn de vijanden van de islam de ongelovigen. En dat zijn dus voor de islam alle mensen die niet in Allah geloven waaronder christenen en joden. Die moeten en zullen dus worden verslagen. Als er dan niemand meer opstandig is tegen de islam, hoef je ook niets meer op te leggen. Want er is immers niemand over die het niet met de islam eens is. Als iedereen verslagen is, valt er ook niet meer op te leggen. Die zijn dood of moslim.

Slinger
12-07-11, 06:45
P.S.: Islam zal inderdaad al zijn vijanden verslaan & het laatst woord hebben = zal zegevieren = het goede zal zegevieren over het kwaad maar islam wordt aan niemand opgelegd zelfs dan

Je mag het ook islamzionisme noemen.