This generalizing is taking away any credit he had. The “war” verses in the Quran are balanced by the peace verses, which only allows war in self-defense, against oppression (4:75), aggression is not allowed, non-combatans may not be harmed and when peace is possible, it must be accepted or offered. In the past certain Muslim rulers have tried to overrule the peace verses by saying they were abrogated by the war verses, but this only worked with a few. Today’s terrorists and extremists use the same tactic by claiming the peace verses are abrogated.

The Muslim majority do not accept this violent interpretation and thus should also not feel they are addressed by Wilders. Sadly, Muslim political leaders and religious leaders like to riot their people. When people react violent, like for example with the riots of the Denmark cartoons, it says more about their frustrated life situation, their social situation, then their anger about the cartoons. As you cannot convince me that those mobs that attacked the Danish ambassies consisted of succesful businessmen…

And this is the main problem, Muslim populations live in hard social situations and as they cannot channel their anger against the Muslim religious leaders as this would be seen as blasphemous, and they cannot fight their oppressive and corrupt governments, they atleast can channel their anger at the “infidel” West.

People like Wilders know this and try to abuse this to make their case in presenting Islam as violent. No, Islam is not violent, Muslim populations are frustrated about their social situations.

Pay close attention to WHERE people riot, and I can tell their social situation is bad or oppressive. You never hear about riots in Muslim countries as for example Senegal.

To get back to the movie, anything Wilders will present has already been written down by anti-Islam books in the last 400 years. He will say nothing, NOTHING, new. Robert Spencer has written several books that say the same thing as Wilders, but no one has rioted over this. The difference thus here, is that a politician makes the same statement, and thus seemingly reflect the belief of a whole nation (Holland in this case).

The movie will be only 15 minutes said Wilders. Interesting, as he claimed that 80-90% of the Quran is violent, meaning around 6000 verses, and he can tackle 6000 verses in 15 minutes? You can already see the hypocrisy here.

He will probably show people being stoned, a practice which is nowhere to be found in the Quran, it is a Jewish law taken over by Muslim judges in the middle ages, and stoning is only done is some tribal areas where no government has control, and only in 3 Muslim countries, I repeat 3 Muslim countries of the 48, accept stoning as punishment.

So this is not an Islamic law accepted by the majority of Muslim countries and finnaly many voices start to spring up seeing this is a non-Quranic law.

Then of course come the war verses, and he will of course avoid mentioning the peace verses that restrict war, just as terrorists do. If the majority of Muslims really believed in the violent interpretation of the Quran, why do 1.2 Billion Muslims attack the West? Why are there only a few hundred extremists here and there to be found? Because only a minority of a minority believes in violence.

Then he will probably mention that the Quran allows beating wives (4:34), a traditional interpretation of the word Daraba which has more then a 100 meanings in Classic Arabic, and this meaning is or abrogated by tradition or it is not accepted as the word Daraba can also mean to leave the wives, not to beat them. Many Quran translations and commentators have expressed this. So, again, it cannot be claimed by him that the Quran says this, he can only claim that this is AN interpretation upheld by some.

Then will come probably the verses that say that Muslims cannot take Jews and Christians as their Whaly(meaning collegeas/friends/protectors). This verse doesn’t say Muslims cannot take Christians and Jews as friends, the verses address the Muslim governments not be dependent of Christian and Jewish nations but to be self-sufficient. So again, Wilders can only address AN interpretation but cannot claim it is THE interpretation.

It is interesting how Wilders has created more unity in Holland between Muslim, Jewish and Christian organisations. It has forced moderate Muslims to stop being silent and speak up and show violent Muslims go against Islam and the Quran. A famous Dutch-Jewish tv personality had bought the front-page of a famous Dutch newspaper and had printed in bold big letters: Wilders is facist and is creating a new form of anti-semitism against Muslims.

Who would ever guessed Wilders would get the Jews after him?

And then you have of course Mohammed the pervert and pedophile. The historical records that say Mohammed married a 9 year old girl are dubious and there are many other historical records that claim her to be 18, 29 and even 48. Which record do we accept? Again Wilders will not address the truth about Muhammed, he will only address A historical record. As for the multiple wives, although I believ emany of these historical records are dubious, even those say that of the 13 wives, all of them were old, most above 40-60 and all were widows. He didn’t marry them for pleasure, but for social help and protection.

One of the main Wilder supporters in the academic world is Prof. Hans Jansen. Although I do respect his knowledge, his concept of the Quran proclaiming violence and this reflected in the Muslim world and their anti-Western attitude is a very short insight into the whole problem. Many Muslim countries are anti-Western because they used to be colonies of the West.

In Indonesia and Suriname, old Dutch colonies, native people hated Dutch people. This had nothing to do with their faith, but with their history. The same accounts for African-Americans who still have a difficult position in America, and this can be seen for example in the Black preacher that supported Barack Obama. he held a very racist speech against white Americans. And Obama correctly said that this reflected more the anger still present in the Black community. Or do we start claiming Christianity preaches racism?

We must use the same logic with Muslim nations where much anti-Western thoughts are remnants of the colonial days.

Muslims must reform themselves and let go of Taqlid, blind following of their leaders and tradition. The Quran is unbelievable in its wideness of understanding life and social issues. But when the interpretation is limited to a 9-14th century understanding which was created under monarch rule, then Islam will be handicapted in freeing the Muslims from their social problems in their societies. And then they will confirm what God already had mentioned:

وقال الرسول يا رب ان قومي اتخذوا هذا القرانمهجورا25:30 And in the Messenger will say: Oh my Developer of all stages of Evolution! My own people have made the Quran mahjoor, binding their understanding so the potentials of its Message will be of no account which will cause them to leave it.

[Mahjoor= A sheep or cow bounded with a rope on its horn/snout and frontleg, so the animal could only limp around, but not run away. Thus making the animal of no account so it could be left behind. In the same way is the Quran bounded by religious interpretations made under monarch rule which have bounded the Quranic potential and made the Quran of no account so it is left behind by mankind.]