Dutch MP Geert Wilders is being prosecuted in Holland for "inciting
hatred and discrimination" and for insulting Muslims by comparing Islam
to Nazism. But how can Muslims be offended with such a comparison when
one of the most prominent 20th century Muslim scholars made a similar
comparison?In his book Islamic Law and Constitution, Sheikh Abul Ala Maududi wrote:
"It [Islamic State] seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity…In
such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and
private. Considered from this aspect, the Islamic State bears a kind of
resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states." Maududi’s
characterization of the Muslim State was intended to be negative and
was never challenged by any Muslim scholar or institution as inaccurate
Many Muslims are offended by Wilders’ questioning -- and any
questioning, criticism or exploration of Muslim scriptures -- because
Muslims themselves are not allowed to do that. Under Islamic Law, a
Muslim will be considered an apostate if he questions or denies any
thing in the Quran, Hadith, or Islamic Shari'a
law. Muslims who have been brought up never to question Islam are
suddenly answering questions asked in the West by stifling freedom of
speech. Of course, Islam denotes this territory as the Dar Al Harb, or house of war.
It does not matter if Muslim scriptures have thousands of references
to hate, condemn to doom, curse, boycott, humiliate, subjugate and kill
non-Muslims. Such scriptures are not just in an old book on a dusty
shelf that is never read, but in one that is recited daily by Muslim
preached in mosques throughout the world and that molds the outlook and
lives of millions of Muslims. And despite protests to the contrary, this does not mean some introspective self-improvement struggle; the definition of jihad in mainstream Shari'a books is "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion." Moreover, jihad is the most compelling duty of a
Muslim head of State: "A Muslim calipha is entrusted to take his people into war and command offensive and aggressive jihad. He must organize jihad against any non-Muslim government, which prevents Muslim da’wah (meaning preaching and spreading Islam) from entering its land."
This legacy lives itself out in our world today in the form of the many Westerners are under Muslim fatwas; in Muslim laws that exempt Muslims from the death penalty if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim; in imams and Muslim politicians throughout the world who refer to infidels as filth, apes, and pigs. Perhaps the greatest insight into Islam is the fact that Muslim law forbids non-Muslims from insulting a Muslim or exposing any weak points in Islamic scripture or philosophy; that is considered an enormity of incredible proportions.
What is bewildering is the Western desire to collaborate with their would-be persecutors. Apparently Western citizens have reached such levels of sophistication that they feel they must respect those poor third worlders’ mentality at their own risk and demise. Thus, the vulnerable non-Muslim citizens in their own countries must show the world they are above it all -- even above a healthy fear that would lead to their self-protection. Thus, European governments today are forbidding their citizens from expressing fear of those Muslim scriptures which demand Sharia law, Islamic Jihad or the killing of non-Muslims, calling their concern "hate speech." The protection of Islamic ideology has become more important than the safety and security of their own citizens.
To cite but one case in point: the actions of the British courts when they gave protection to Muslim scriptures from being sued under its religious hate speech laws, as reported by CNS News on July 12, 2005: "In a victory for British Muslim campaigners, the House of Commons passed a bill aimed at curbing religious hatred, despite critics’ warnings that it could worsen relations between religious communities...In an earlier Commons debate, a Conservative MP raised the possibility that the law, if passed, could outlaw the reading of passages of the Qur’an that called for harsh treatment against Christians and Jews…The delegation suggested that it may be preferable to ‘totally exempt’ Islamic texts from the bill."
I don’t necessarily blame the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference's efforts to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam. Muslim leadership are doing what their religious laws tell them to do. But what is appalling and frightening is that Western courts are buying it; giving aid and comfort to a hostile ideology whose aim is nothing less than the complete overthrow of Western constitutional democracy and its replacement with a totalitarian religious regime. Sheik Maududi and Geert Wilders are correct and in agreement. That is why we must defend Wilders, and ourselves.
 Sheikh Abul Ala Maududi, "Islamic Law and Constitution", p. 262.
 Ahmad Ibn Al-Naqib al-Misri, "Reliance of the Traveler" p. 599.
 Ibid, o25.0 to o25.9