Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian who faces trial for criticizing Islam and was banned from Britain, was at least allowed into the US for a speech in Washington last month. But the stepchild treatment he received at the Conservative Political Action Conference, and the shrill counter-propaganda distributed that day by Muslim groups, dramatize the creeping cowardice that may eventually leave America as intimidated as Europe and the UK in the face of soft jihad. Mr. Wilders was hosted separately from CPAC by David Horowitz and a few other outside sponsors. He spoke at 6PM on Saturday, Feb. 28, in the Blue Room at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, on the far opposite side of the hotel from the rest of the conference . I suspect that the American Conservative Union, conference host and supposedly the bastion of liberty, was fearful of “offending” the Muslims present.
We lined up for the talk. The doors were closed and two policemen were standing with metal detector wands.
While we were waiting, a pamphlet was distributed to those of us waiting in line. I have included a scan of it below at the following link, with a couple of photos from the occasion.
Let me address the accusations in that pamphlet: The first point blames the Dutch government for
o “redlining Muslim populations into poverty” o “Muslims held hostage to living in Ghettos o “children receiving little educational resources” o “making 43% less wage.
But let us see what Ayaan Hersi Ali says about this:
“I was beginning to see that Muslims in Holland were being allowed to form their own pillar in Dutch society, with their own schools and their own way of life, just like the Catholics or Jews. They were being left politely alone to live in their own world. The idea was that immigrants needed self-respect, which would come from a strong sense of membership in a community. They should be permitted to set up Quranic schools on Dutch soil. There should be government subsidies for Muslim community groups. To force Muslims to adapt to Dutch values was thought to conflict with those values; people ought to be free to believe and behave as they wish.” ( “Infidel”, Ayaan Hersi Ali, Free Press, New York, NY 10020 page 245)
Thus, the “redlining” was the Muslims choosing on their own to live in their own communities. The schools the Muslims set up themselves were Quranic. Memorizing Suras of the Qur’an and learning Jihad aren’t exactly subjects that lead to gainful employment. Yet they blame the Dutch for no earning power!
The second point in that 2/28 leaflet blames the Dutch for:
o not integrating Muslim youth into their society o For leaving the youth to become gang members o For the their violence o For their unemployment
But what does Ayaan Hersi Ali say about this:
“Children weren’t encouraged to ask questions, and their creativity was not stimulated. They were taught to keep their distance from unbelievers and to obey” (Ibid, page 246).
The leaflet's next point makes the following accusations:
o Mr. Wilders’ translations of the Qur’an are wrong because he doesn’t speak Arabic o That they are “taken out of context”.
Islamic doctrine holds that the Qur’an is Universal. Therefore, are the Muslims for America saying it can only be read in Arabic? Only a small portion of the world’s Muslims read and write Arabic. The Qur’an is translated effectively into many languages.
As for the Quranic quotes in “Fitna” being out of context, Robert Spencer had a Qur’an Commentary at the meeting!. He looked up the passage referring to “strike the unbeliever in the neck”. The context was “usually causing death”.
The Muslims for America went on to assert they were “moderate” and challenged Mr. Wilders to a debate.
But they are saying the same things that CAIR and the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood front organization say: that the Muslims are “victims” and are taking no responsibility for their situation, blaming everyone in sight except themselves.. In my opinion, this sounds like the same deceptive “cultural Jihad” we see everywhere else. Nothing seems“moderate” here!
Debating Muslims is a non-starter. Their concept of “Taqiyya” permits deceit if it furthers the cause of Islam. (Source: Sahih Muslim, Book 032 Number 6303)
The conclusion is stark: it seems we had Dhimmis (defined as a non-Muslim semi-slave that has submitted to Islam: who is ignorant of Islam and afraid of “offending” Muslims) running CPAC 2009. Except for William Bennett noting that the assault of Islam on our Civilization has to be faced and discussed, not a single speaker or panel even mentioned the most serious issue we face in the world today.
My suspicion is that the smiling and hand shaking “Muslims for America” could be infiltrating Jihadists who do not have our long term interest at heart. Are they tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and funded by the Saudis like the rest?
Islam divides the world into two halves: the “Dar Al Islam”, and the “Dar Al Harb”. Pius Muslims would NEVER ally themselves with the “Kaffirs” to strengthen a “Kaffir” government devised by unbelievers. Their sacred obligation is to impose on all humanity The Shari’a, which comes straight from Allah himself.