Do Geert Wilders' views on Islam promote religious intolerance?

No

1 of 12

by Gary C. Gibson

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Mohammedanist Shi'a and Sunni sects each have an end times list of events for the world that supply innumerable motives for violence to non-Muslims. Should Europeans tolerate Muslim immigration, terror and annexation until Europe is dominated and Mohammedan hegemony is fullfilled? Muhammedanism is a world conquest religion devoted to expanding the dar al islam globally.

Planetary submission to the pagan god allah and Muhammed is the goal of the Mohammadan creed. Mohammed was the son of the keeper of the pagan gods at Mecca. allah was the tribal pagan god of the Qu'rash tribe in which Mohammed was reered. He upgraded the pagan god of his tribe from amidst all of those his father kept at Mecca as keeper of the Kaaba, and to which people had prayed for generations already facing in that General direction five times a day in prostration, and consolidated them killing off all statue-idol presence except allah's. Mohammeds plan for global conquest was basically the same-kill of all religious opposition. Expanding with violence is still the method of aggressive Muslim prosyletizers such as those of Al Qa'eda. De Geert Wilder's may not be in agreeement on that plan of meglomania fueld by fossil fuel profits most recently.

Mohammedanist Shi'a and Sunni sects each have an end times list of events for the world that supply innumerable motives for violence to non-Muslims. The end times events are derivatives largely from corruptions of Jewish and Christian end times prophesies. When a large Mohammedanist fundamentalist culture migrates to Europe it is likely that some of its more terrorist oriented will explosively agitate. De Geert Wilders' ideas are European and not marginally as explosive. It one were to count the number of suicide and terrorist detonations in the mid-east the last 30 years the number might be rather high. Tolerance it should be remembered is largely a western, democratic idea-while the destruction is Israel and fighting the Jews are deeply rooted in Mohammedanism.

The expression of political opinions regarding real issues is necessary for any democracy. Authoritarian governments do repress and eliminate political opinions, yet the vast expression of ideas is the strength of a democracy. One would need to be quite daft to fail to notice the trend of Muslim fundamentalism toward clerical authoritarianism in Muslim nations in the 20th century, and to fail to comprehend that Muslim terrorism in Europe has been a pillar of terrorist ventures the past 50 years. The increasing numbers of Muslim workers and terrorist trainee sleepers into Europe would move Europe toward more intolerant Muslim basic practices such as is found in Iran, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

Do political opinions have a right to promote intolerance of nationally harmful political and demographic trends? What a sappy, lethargic notion for westerners to conjecture. Having a right to have and express political and other personal opinions is a fundamental right of democracy. Wilder's expressions exercise the right of political rationality and cultural survival; traits that those in politics should not keep in a dark place and conserve for a moldy burial.

Has Mohammedanism before been a source of social invasion, or was it's origin founded in a policy of invasion and global conquest? Should Europeans have a right or interest in self-survival the question might be asked better, or would that promote intolerance for foreign invasion and slow up submission to Mecca and its 274 billion barrels of proved oil reserves?

For sure Europeans have been battered from all sides historically; from Asia with Ghengis and his sons, from African Carthaginians, from Thera/Crete's magnificent Atlantan culture that gave the earliest alphabet to Greece, from Turkey and the abominable Muslim Ottoman Empire that invaded right up to Wien Austria crushing the Balkan Peninsula underfoot in the process and directly from Abbasid invasions of Sicily, Spain and Tenados for an attack on Constantinople. Should Europeans have the right to defend themselves against creeping or constant, sudden or sneaking foreign conquests, or would that be intolerant, especially if some seek to conserve a tradition of history, liberty and justice for all individuals?

In the United States a son of a Kenyan foreign exchange student flitted over by airline has risen to rise above a poiled Hawaiian and Indonesia origin to run for President of the challenging monochrome world of the north. In Kenya Masai tribe persons have a tradition of drinking the blood of the cattle they herd yet keeping them alive for a blood source. Like the Osmanli herders of humans that came to rule much of the Mohammedan world the concept of a foreign vampirism of animals transferred to rule over a herd of democrats is possible, and they will even wonder if it is intolerant to consider historical parallels of herders of animals that became herders of humans, or even half-vampires making that transition. One should be like an ostrich for better political adaptability to the requisites of global broadcast media and corporatism.

Learn more about this author, Gary C. Gibson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.