He would be the first artist to risk his own as well as other people's lives. The one distinguishing feature of art I would say is that it does not need any support or confirmation from the physical world. Convincing literature is at once history. Mr. Wilders is a very successful politician, not an artist.
Incidentally, being a successful politician does not imply accomplishment, or "getting things done". It means being able to create a following and to stir controversy. Or this is how I see it.

Addendum

Of course, the "physical world" is a construct like any other; make no mistake.

No promotion for that artist/clown anymore. A Man who wants to burn books in appeal of freedom of speech has to be kept under wraps.
I like the initiative of lots of people who put a film under the name of Geert Wilders Fitna on Youtube so you cannot find the real one. I recommend some films, they are hilarious.

Heidegger on art and politics

The great German philosopher Heidegger wrote some interesting thoughts on politics and art. To him a true politican or political act was an artist and an act of art . Meaning that politics is creation in a strong and very practical way; directing the people or a nation towards it's destination, creating a past and a future. It is well known that for this reason Heidegger was quite positive towards nazism. I'm not saying that I think Wilders is a true politician or a nazi. I'm not atracted to both. But Heidegger has made some very interesting thoughts not about how politcis should work but about what forces are in play in politics. Also Heidegger might give some interesting view on American and why not dutch elections .

- Does the Koran have hateful passages? yes
- Do the followers of islam consider these passages as holy? yes
- Is there a lot of violence inspired by these passages? yes
- Is it almost impossible to criticize islam because of intimidation? yes

I rest my case...

Joep
Does the Bible have hateful passages? Yes
- Do the followers of the bible consider these passages as holy? yes
- Is there a lot of violence inspired by these passages? yes
- Is it almost impossible to criticize the bible because of intimidation? Yes I believe so

Change the word bible with the word recipe book and you can prepare a nice vegetarian meal . Invite a lot of people with different cultural backgrounds and you can have an interesting evening.

Helen

For al I know it is fairly common to depict Jesus in a less flattering manner than prescribed by zealous believers.
I have to admit that when I wrote the play “Our Pope” meant to be performed in Poland an academic from the city of Wroclaw dared me to write the play “My Muhammad” and have it performed in the Dutch city of Rotterdam. He was trying to suggest that I was a coward for what he thought was ridiculing the pope instead of ridiculing Muhammad.
Please keep in mind that people are being threatened for having drawn the prophet. As far as I know nobody is being threatened for having drawn Jesus or Moses.

Arnon,
Being not specific religious I expect that when I drawed Jesus ( wat is not forbidden) in an compromitting pose , religious people wouldn't appreciate it. Probably this would be relativated and less seen as an personal insult. Why take other peoples' art expression so personal then ( Salman Rushdie) ? Do you have any idea? The arrogant language Wilders uses always makes me mad. I really don't know why he can trigger me and I cannot relativate his words.
I didn't know about "my Mohammad"

Heidegger and Joep

I don't know too much about Heidegger but I think there is something very wrong with trying to legitimize political events in terms of art. I can see why Stockhausen felt that 9/11 was the "biggest work of art there has ever been" but one should be careful to stick with the metaphor.

As for Joep resting his case, I think he should start with quoting some of these hateful passages from the Koran. Then he should explain what "holy" means to him, and if there is anything he himself holds holy. Further, it should be considered whether violence is inspired by the passages or by those who read them, and their subsequent antagonists. Finally, I think it is very well possible to discuss Islamic issues with any teacher or imam. But perhaps you can tell us what you find holy, Joep Smaling, and if you'll allow us to criticize it.

Helen

Since Enlightenment (and even before) philosophers, writers and other intellectuals have criticized the Bible. The Bible is as hateful as the Koran, but at least you can say something about it without your life being in danger.
Please explain why it's so horrible of Wilders to criticize passages in the Koran that mobilize hate...

RHCDG

I do not consider anything to be holy. I do not believe in a God or a purpose to life in general. I think whats really important is the right of humans to believe and say what they want. I think people must be able to comment without people attempting to take their lives. I think people should be able to express whatever they want, and however they want, even if their agenda is abject. 'Decency' is a farce. There should be no limitations to freedom of speech. Here in NL, the christian parties consider it 'undecent ' to criticize other people's beliefs. I think this is dangerous. They have found a sneaky way to (try to) shut up criticasters., by mobilizing a hollow concept as decency. I still do not understand why its so horrific of Wilders that he wants to point out some aspects of Islam.

RD

Here are your quotes: http://www.uitkijk.net/islam.php?do=ag

Joep

You need to be more specific; most of what is quoted on that page should be understood in historical context; a lot of other stuff re: exclusive loyalty to God (Allah) reminds me of any love relationship and the ridiculous demands both parties impose on each other. Incidentally, the conclusions that follow the citations on that page are biased to say the least, and can very easily be challenged. It is a page designed to accommodate lazy people. That is the only hatefulness I found on it.

If you really think passages like that are innocent and should be relativated... i don't know what to say except that you are utterly naive, and thats a shame, maybe even a crime. There are daily examples of believers who take these commandments literally. So whats you point?

This is sickening. Do I really need to post links here to reports of Amnesty International for example, to have a converstation with you?

Joep

You can post any link you wish, just as long as you don't do it for the porpose of having a conversation with me. I have asked you to quote 1 (one) passage from the Koran that you think is hateful. So far, you have taken 5 responses, but are still not delivering.

I have read the Koran once, and I came to the same conclusion as with the Bible, the whole scale of human behavior is depicted in it and believers can collect what they like.: from a gentile Soefi to a fundamentalist bully.
Like everywhere the bullies are winning.

For RHCdG

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (Dawood's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)

And

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book (Bible), until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” –The Koran, Sura 9:29

Noa

Good to see you're not as lazy as Joep, who even fell asleep on me last night. ("Könnt ihr nicht ein Stunde mit mir wachen?" seemed appropriate, I thought).

At any rate, I don't know what you find hateful about men spending their wealth to maintain their women, and asking for some support in return. Generally, women are much stronger and wiser than men, and know how to rise above this arrangement. Is it the beating you don't like? I don't either. It's not becoming of a man. Therefore, women should always avoid it.

The second quote merely asks to protect the faith by standing up to those who contest it. What faith would it be that does not think itself superior, and would strive to unite as many people as possible under its banner? With the exception of Buddhism, this is what religion does. But tell me, when did any muslim make any attempt at converting you? Isn't it the other way around, rather, and are so-called enlightened westerners not converting muslims?

RH

I do not want to contaminate this blog with quotes, thats why i posted a link. For now: see the quotes above. The question is: do you really think that it is a bad thing when one criticizes passages like that? And: do you really think believing this stuff doesnt lead to hate? There will always be people who take this as a declaration of truth.

Rutger, agreed, there are more religions - most religions - who spread hate, or at least are institutionalized in such a way that the result is hate, violence and war in name of that religion. That's a no-brainer, agreed? And yes, western preachers of enlightment do often find their morals superior to those of religion, but the point is this: they do not kill in the name of enlightment. You can question whether enlghtened values are superior to religious values but that's yet another no-brainer discussion.
And by the way, Geert Wilders is in no way the only artist who risks his life. That's ridiculous. Since the beginning of mankind there were artists who risked their lives defending what they thought was right.
Although I despise Geert Wilders, I completely sympathize with the point he is trying to make. Personally, I hope his film is nothing but a compilations of all the reactions, worldwide, to the idea that someone may quite possible make an anti-islam film. As for me, by now you all know I will defend Ayaan Hirsi Ali, merely for what she symbolizes, and for the fact that Theo van Gogh was slaughtered in post-Fortuyn Holland, something people seem to be forgetting quite easily. I find it my obligation to keep pointing this out.
Political correctness is going to be our downfall. The non-muslim in our midst who grovel in adoration at the feet of people such as Tariq Ramadan, give him subsidies and provide him his 'first european islamic university', will be the first to have their heads chopped off. I'm speaking metaphorically, of course.

RH

The way you are interpreting these quotes is hilarious. It shows clearly that there is no sane way of discussing with you. With your logic, even the most direct and clear calls to violence can be interpreted as totally safe and cute. It is funny and it is sad. I am very glad that I chose my sleep last night .

Noa

AMEN.

PS Batta - the floor is yours, I know your dying to defend Tariq Ramadan. Or has your fiance forbidden you to put postings on this site?

Joep

Merci.

Joep

Where in Noa's quotes do you find a direct and clear call to violence? Surely, not in the wife beating, I hope? Nor in the word, "fight" that starts off her second quote. It merely means, "oppose". I think the Koran is your own private book of demons.

Noa

Western preachers of enlightment do not kill in the name of enlightment? What do you think the western world is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how are they accounting for it? Are they not bringing "freedom" and "democracy"?
Give me a break.
The only crusade I see is coming from the likes of Wilders, Van Gogh, Hirsi Ali. They are today's preachers and politicians at once, stirring controversy and creating a huge following of people who easily buy into hearsay and malevolent interpretations, like yourselves. Your "opinions" come right out of their books of wisdom; there is nothing you yourself thought over. Same for your buddy Joep.

It's good to be back!

RH

So it's impposible to agree with certain thinkers because then 'you yourself didn't think it over'? Nonsense.

My dear Rutger, you quite easily forget the initial cause for these wars you refer to. What do you think was the context by which Hossein comitted mass murder in Koerdistan? Regarding Afghanistan - I know too little of this, Arnon is the expert . But the way I see it, iit's definitely a religious war - from both sides. Bush uses the word "God" in every speach and christians in every other speach. The Dutch - who are also participating in these wars - only so happen to have a religiously inspired parliament. I'm sure you can do the math, but in other words, I do not defend these wars. Quite the opposite, for the very reason that to me they are religious wars (on both sides) and NOT wars initiated by enlightened ideals. In fact, most enlightened thinkers opposed these wars.
Last but not least - a revolution of ideals must come from within, from the people themselves and cannot be imposed from outside. I'm sure enlightened thinkers are very aware of this.

PS Rutger, I'd appreciate it if you would kindly refrain from making this discussion so ridiculoursly childish by bringing it down to the level of personal accusations (using wording such as "you and your buddy", "thinking it over" etc.)
That's not the way to discuss a serious topic. Please study the codes of debate.
It's not about "oh, so you must think I'm an asshole because you disagree with my views", no it's about "I disagree with your views, please present some views that may convince me otherwise."

My dear Noa

I don't know to which code of debate you are referring, but "My dear Rutger" is condescending in to my book. Other than that, I think math is a no brainer.

I'm done here for now; until next time.

Erratum

in my book

To Noa and others

Those who attack political correctness (which has sometimes gone to extremes I agree) often are trying to make bigotry socially acceptable again. That it’s going to be our downfall is laughable. But some racists might think that society is going downhill because we cannot call black people niggers anymore and some others might think that it’s the last blow to society that we cannot refer to Muslims as goat fuckers anymore. Or at least not as often as some would like.
I’m not sure how you can sympathize with the point Mr. Wilders is trying to make and despise him at the same time. All I can make of this is that you like him but not his hairdo.
And an attack ad hominem might not be to your liking, but it does not disqualify the attacker from the discussion. The rules of the game (i.e. the rules of the discussion) are not to be set by one or more participants in the discussion.
Martin van Creveld said to me last Saturday: “The Arabs missed the renaissance, they missed the French revolution, they missed the industrial revolution, but besides that they are the most progressive people in the world.”
Needless to say he was being sarcastic.
The question why they missed all this is far more complicated than the Koran and its content.
To discuss a book based on quotations plundered from the internet is not the most sophisticated thing to do, but I understand that our time is precious.

To Arnon and Rutger

@ Rutger - your memory is rusty, I used 'my dear' because you used it on previous occasions.
@ Arnon - quite clearly your are only referring to me in your posting, as all of your points are reactions to the ones I made.
I don't know what went wrong between us, why did our love turn so sour Arnon? Anyway, somewhere along the line (was it the 'army boot' thing? Or is it that I am a female?) you decided to be extremely irritated by the things I say and this entry of yours is your subtextual way of saying that.
I guess it would be way too much to ask of you to just for once, only for me, agree to something, anything I say. Let's call it an experiment? But perhaps you can't do that and you'll hate my every posting. Well then, iIguess that means I should - like Neria and Ilanit and Batta and Hanne V- disappear.
One last thing regarding your point on Wilders - not liking someone for finding him a creep, and perhaps even not agreeing to his methods, does not mean I cannot agree to some of his views. You must be kidding when you say that's impossible. Would you think it impossible for someone to find you a creep and maybe even hate you, but at the same time love Het Aapje dat Geluk pakt? I'm speaking hypothetically, by the way.

And on holy wars Arnon

I am currently in Brazil, and interestingly, on borrowing from Creeveld: the Brazilians too missed the renaissance, they missed the French revolution, they missed the industrial revolution. And you know what? They are in fact progressive. Perhaps the New World has some pointers for the Old - and perhaps we should learn to look the other way.

Noa

I like you a lot and I’m not irritated that al. My last comment was definitely not only a reaction to your comments.
In the case of Geert Wilders I don’t see how you can distinguish between his methods and the point he is making; his methods are the point.
And you are entitled to agree with his methods, this would not disqualify you from future discussions nor would it diminish my eternal love for you.
But you cannot have your cake and it eat it too.
For the record and to avoid misunderstandings: I don’t think Mr. Wilders is a threat to democracy and I sympathize with a Dutch columnist who declared that he would be silent about Geert Wilders as long as Wilders is under threat.
Needless to say that Mr. Wilders is not a character in one of my novels. And needless to say that it is very well possible to like or even love criminals, warmongers, psychopaths and rapists or politicians with whom you strongly disagree. But you were not trying to suggest that you in are in love with Mr. Wilders?
And please don’t hide behind your femininity when your comments are modestly criticized.

Noa

Off topic: what are you doing behind a computer when you're in Brazil??? I'm very curious: did you encounter any she-males yet?

Arnon

I agree with Noa that political correctness can become a downfall. Im not propagating political incorrectness in the sense that you must be able to call black people niggers, but in the sense that The Netherlands has a way of tolerating the intolerant.

Joep, I am writing a novel which is set in Rio & Recife but find that I'm procrastinating and torturing myself by visiting the site of a novelist whose work I admire. Perhaps I should write about something closer to home: the desperacy of being a blogpee/aka of being me.
I have seen a few she-males, one of which goes to a hair salon every monday on his way to work (he fixes roofs) to borrow nailpolish remover.
To be honest, the whole she-male business doesn't interest me as much as I'd expected, nor does the glamorization of 'favela-poor' (I stayed in one for a few nights). How a female film-director falls in love with the Consul General and loses herself in that lifestyle does.

Arnon - thank you, much appreciated.

Joep
My opinion. To spread hate contributes to polarisation. Polarisation declines communication. There is a difference between criticism , feedback and debating. You have to obbey rules and arguments and not insults are important . You don’t have to aggree. “C’est le ton qui fait la musique”. You cannot generalise everyone who interprets a book.

Is The Dalai Lama political correct because he teaches non violence?

@Rutger & Joep

I doubt Rutger and Joep will still be visiting this entry as many new ones have followed, but it's worth a try - further illustration to the point you were making to Rutger, Joep, may be read on this link.
http://revolution.muslimpad.com/2008/03/27/congratulations-geert-your-“fitna”-movie-has-created-more-mujaahideen-amongst-the-muslims/

Noa

On the internet you can find everything to your liking, actually not only on the internet.

Leuk eieren verven. Ik denk dat dat het was wat ik miste op onze brunch

@Arnon, re: internet & everything to my liking

As this is an old entry, I thought I'd put a header on it so you knew in what light to place it. I'm aware I can quite easily cut and paste things from websites, and that it's an oversimplification. I'm also very well aware that the Koran contains many more poetic and metaphorical texts aswell as humane ideals, than ones that can be interpreted as aggressive. I've had my share of experiences within the Maroccan community (which I can enligten you on whenever we meet), and that having been said: I have nothing against muslims. Quite the opposite. But that's not the point.