Anti-Islamist politician Geert Wilders refused entry to Britain

[aadil77]

The far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders was turned away from Heathrow today after testing the Home Secretary’s ban on him entering the country.

Immigration officials denied the Dutch MP entry to the country after the Government decided he should not be allowed to attend a screening of his controversial anti-Islamist film tonight.

Mr Wilders said: "I am in a detention centre at Heathrow ... I am detained. They took my passport. I will not be allowed to enter the country. They will send me back within a few hours.”

On his flight to London, he told The Times that the British Government was “the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe”.

”It is easy to invite people you agree with, it is more difficult to invite people you disagree with and this is the proof of the pudding," he said.

"I am going to Great Britain because I was invited by another politician (Lord Pearson of Rannoch). I am a democrat, I am serving freedom of speech. They are not only being nasty to me they are being nasty to freedom of speech.

He added: "They (the British government) are more Chamberlain than Churchill."

At 2.20pm, Mr Wilders was escorted through UK immigration by two plain-clothed officers and into the offices of the UK border agency.

At one stage, during the long walk from the plane to immigration, one of Mr Wilders’ bodyguards asked border agency guards to relax their grip on the MP.

The guards kept a tight hold on both Mr Wilders’s arms as they walked him through the airport followed by a gaggle of journalists and cameramen.

As he approached passport control, Mr Wilders was asked if he was nervous. He replied: “I’m not nervous. I’m just anxious to find out what will happen to me. Is this how Great Britain welcomes a democrat?”

Among those waiting for Mr Wilders in arrivals was Gerard Batten, UKIP MEP for London. “I thought it would be a nice touch to turn up and welcome him here if he gets through,” he said.

Mr Wilders, 45, an MP in the Netherlands, caught a British Midlands flight from Amsterdam this afternoon brandishing his passport and boarding pass. He said he would have to be physically restrained from entering the country. “I’ll see what happens at the border. Let them put me in handcuffs,” he said.

The MP was invited to attend a showing of his 17-minute film, Fitna, at the House of Lords by the UKIP peer Lord Pearson.

The film features verses from the Koran with images of terrorist attacks in New York, London and Madrid and calls on Muslims to remove “hate-preaching” verses from the text. Lord Pearson said that the screening would go ahead with or without Mr Wilders.

The Home Office decision to refuse Mr Wilders entry on account of his views provoked Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister, to call David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, to protest at the decision. “The fact that a Dutch parliamentarian is refused entry to another EU country is highly regrettable,” Mr Verhagen said.

In the House of Lords today, the peer who invited Mr Wilders to Britain mounted a staunch defence of the right-wing Dutch politician’s right to show a controversial film about Islam.

Lord Pearson aid he disagreed with some of Mr Wilders’ views but believed he should be allowed to express them.

He asked Home Office minister Lord West of Spithead: “Do you think this situation would occur if Mr Wilders had said ban the Bible. If it would not have occurred, why would it not have occurred?”

“Surely the violence and the disturbance that may arise from showing this film in this country is not caused by the film which attempts to show merely how the violent Islamist uses the Koran to perpetrate his terrible acts.

“The violence is coming from the Jihadist, the violent Islamist, and surely the Government in doing what it has done is therefore guilty of appeasement.”

Lord West replied: “I certainly don’t think we are guilty of appeasement in any way whatsoever. I don’t want to go down the route of discussing a hypothetical case of what if he talked about this, what if he talked about that.”

He told peers: “Under European law a member state of the European Economic Area may refuse entry to a national of another EEA state if they constitute a threat to public policy, public security or public health.”

link: http://shirhashirim.files.wordpress....jk-geertje.jpg

comments?

[Pomak]

He isn't an "anti-Islamist" he's a bigot who hates Islam and has said as much.

And its nice to see that the poms are applying their laws.

[glo]

I have mixed feelings about this.
By denying him entry into the UK the government have given him ammunition to declare himself victimised and to accuse the UK government of 'giving in fearfully to extremist Muslim elements'. Neither is constructive, and I am sure Wilders will be able to use these to his advantage.

Perhaps a better strategy would have been to allow him entry into the UK, and to invite him to a public debate with knowledgeable Muslim scholars - people who can expose his anti-Islamic statements for what they are and who can refute his claims about Islam.
Fighting his hateful claims with kindness and peace would be much more effective!

Peace

[Pomak]

I have mixed feelings about this.
Perhaps a better strategy would have been to allow him entry into the UK, and to invite him to a public debate with knowledgeable Muslim scholars - people who can expose his anti-Islamic statements for what they are and who can refute his claims about Islam.

Thus legitimizing him and his views?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[glo]

Thus legitimizing him and his views?

No, thus refuting him and making his claims void.

[glo]

Here is an article I found interesting:

Thanks to the Government’s ban, Mr Wilders - who allows no room for debate about his strident anti-Islamist views - could not be exposed for his own intolerance. He has instead claimed the moral high ground by calling the Government “cowards”. Even moderate Muslims seemed to play into his hands: the ban was supported by the Muslim Council of Britain.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5725776.ece

Peace

[Pomak]

No, thus refuting him and making his claims void.

You can easily refute him without giving him credibility. Anyways its impossible to "invite" him to the UK since he is barred.

Each to their own.

[Trumble]

comments?

A mistake.

Partly because, however reprehensible (and they are reprehensible) the man's ideas may be, I don't like the idea of politicians deciding who can say what and travel where on a whim. This was done purely on the basis of the fact his presence might 'upset' people (rather than any real risk of inciting hatred or violence) and that simply isn't an acceptable reason for denying an individual his rights, whatever you may happen to think of him.

And mostly because, just like all the initial fuss about the film, if people had just ignored both it and him 99.9% of them wouldn't even be aware of the existence of either.

[K.Venugopal]

I think we should not be naive. Islam has a history of being opposed, as has probably all religions. Why this sudden fear that opposing Islam (and that too in the realm of non-violent persuasion) will lead to the sky falling down? A good debate does nobody any harm except increase our tolerance levels. I, as a Hindu, would have absolutely no objection to Hinduism being criticized in debate without any call to arms.

[Trumble]

Why this sudden fear that opposing Islam (and that too in the realm of non-violent persuasion) will lead to the sky falling down?

Another problem here, being frank, is that there is a now a distinct perception among many Britons of other religious that Islam is being treated differently than everybody else in such matters. I do think we need to honestly ask if this man would have been prohibited from entering the UK if his film referred to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Hindu scriptures or, indeed, anything but the Qur'an, no matter how much it happened to offend anybody?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
I would have liked to see Wilders get refuted (by just about everyone) but that isn't what he was coming to the UK for.

[aadil77]

I have mixed feelings about this.
By denying him entry into the UK the government have given him ammunition to declare himself victimised and to accuse the UK government of 'giving in fearfully to extremist Muslim elements'. Neither is constructive, and I am sure Wilders will be able to use these to his advantage.

Perhaps a better strategy would have been to allow him entry into the UK, and to invite him to a public debate with knowledgeable Muslim scholars - people who can expose his anti-Islamic statements for what they are and who can refute his claims about Islam.
Fighting his hateful claims with kindness and peace would be much more effective!

Peace

I don't think the debate would have ended just there, think again - this is a man that wants the Quran to be banned, he would have stopped at nothing create outrage in this country. This is why the UK Govt banned him on the grounds of a threat to public safety.

Imagine if I said the the bible should be banned?

[K.Venugopal]

I don't think the debate would have ended just there, think again - this is a man that wants the Quran to be banned, he would have stopped at nothing create outrage in this country. This is why the UK Govt banned him on the grounds of a threat to public safety.

Imagine if I said the the bible should be banned?

No book should be banned. Even a book Geert Wilders might write titled "Why I think the Quran should be banned." In India some years ago someone petitioned the High Court calling for a ban on the Quran. The court accepted the petition without prima facie rejecting it and this created a huge controversy. The government of the day moved quick to get the petition rejected and the matter ended there. Of course, everyone jumps the gun in matters like these and nothing can be discussed rationally in the ensuing havoc. Imagine, if all concerned with it had held their horses and let proceed the ‘for and against’ arguments. We would have been privy to a great debate and many misunderstandings about the Quran would have been clarified within the space of civilized discourse. The Quran would have justified itself even amongst those non-Muslims who looked upon it suspiciously.

India also banned The Satanic Verses fearing street violence. No book should be banned, even books that may be considered as having only nuisance value. We can always learn something from everyone - even from idiots (at least the lesson that idiocy is a possibility waiting to pop up from the most unexpected quarters).

[glo]

I don't think the debate would have ended just there, think again - this is a man that wants the Quran to be banned, he would have stopped at nothing create outrage in this country. This is why the UK Govt banned him on the grounds of a threat to public safety.

Imagine if I said the the bible should be banned?

If anybody declared that the Bible should be banned, I would feel upset and hurt too. I am not saying that I cannot understand Muslims feeling that way.

The point I was trying to make is that banning Wilders from this country will not make him or his claims disappear. Neither would aggressive responses, death threats or fatwas achieve this.
The only way to counteract the damage he is trying to cause would be to engage with him and peacefully debate and refute his claims - publically, so the whole world can witness the event.

At the moment all we seem to have is a spiteful propaganda film, which - to my understanding - contains very little facts, but has the potential to cause much damage.

Now, it is of course possible that Wilders has no interest to engage in a proper public debate.
But we won't know unless he is invited to do so. If he was invited and refused, that would speak volumes for itself - and he would loose his credibility.
If he did accept the invitation, knowledgeable Muslims would have the opportunity to set the record straight!

Just my own thoughts, of course ...

[alcurad]

^agree
certain books and views should be-and are- banned though, what about holocaust revisionists? three words, hypocrisy doesn't work..
unrestrained freedom is not good, as simple as that.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Alhamdulillaah.

[Suomipoika]

I fear Europe is heading to a direction where people are valued differently and offered better protection from insults or racism based on religion or ethnicity. There are plenty of people who belong to various hate groups who openly travel to UK. First one who comes to my mind is the holocaust denier Fredrick Töben (the Australian who was allowed to stay in UK after the German attempts to extradite him failed).

[Zafran]

salaam

wilders is hiding behind free specch and wants the Quran banned?

isnt that violiting freedom of speech in itself. Banning a book is against freedom of speech is it not?

is this not hypocricy?

[Pomak]

A mistake.

Partly because, however reprehensible (and they are reprehensible) the man's ideas may be, I don't like the idea of politicians deciding who can say what and travel where on a whim. This was done purely on the basis of the fact his presence might 'upset' people (rather than any real risk of inciting hatred or violence) and that simply isn't an acceptable reason for denying an individual his rights, whatever you may happen to think of him.

And mostly because, just like all the initial fuss about the film, if people had just ignored both it and him 99.9% of them wouldn't even be aware of the existence of either.

UK has used this legislation to ban muslim 'preachers' because it considered them "preachers of hate". And to me that is worse than banning politicians, not because i agree with those preachers,(heck no) but if were going to bend the rules for anything it would be for religious leaders rather than politicians.

And the film was basically ignored by most muslims. (i think some of the eastern European Muslims had a screening of the film where they gave a counter film)

I fear Europe is heading to a direction where people are valued differently and offered better protection from insults or racism based on religion or ethnicity. There are plenty of people who belong to various hate groups who openly travel to UK. First one who comes to my mind is the holocaust denier Fredrick Töben (the Australian who was allowed to stay in UK after the German attempts to extradite him failed).

Well we have this concept "do not mock/ridicule their gods, lest they (out of ignorance) lash out and mock Allah (aka god/g*d)". Or if you want something more "western" look up definition of tolerance. (thats on the issue of this law should exist or not)

I really hope were not suggesting that laws should be applied to Muslims when they transgress, but not to those that transgress Muslims. Because muslims have been barred from UK because of this law. Also do you believe Holocaust denial should be a crime(as it is in a few EU countries?)

[Trumble]

I really hope were not suggesting that laws should be applied to Muslims when they transgress, but not to those that transgress Muslims. Because muslims have been barred from UK because of this law. Also do you believe Holocaust denial should be a crime(as it is in a few EU countries?)

No, I was not suggesting that. However, as I said, the point is that the film been about the Bible, say (and an analogous version would be quite easy to do, should you be so minded), this would not have happened. I claimed merely that there is a common perception that a double standard exists, and IMHVO not without justification.

No, I do not believe Holocaust denial should be a crime. The reasons why are best explained by, and originate with, John Stuart Mill. You want chapter II.

[Pomak]

No, I was not suggesting that. However, as I said, the point is that the film been about the Bible, say (and an analogous version would be quite easy to do, should you be so minded), this would not have happened. I claimed merely that there is a common perception that a double standard exists, and IMHVO not without justification.

No, I do not believe Holocaust denial should be a crime. The reasons why are best explained by, and originate with, John Stuart Mill. You want chapter II.

I don't get the bible analogy, in the sense that Europe is at best only culturally Christian. Orthodox believers have been a minority for a while. (France for example has 10% church attendance)

As for the second part, doubt it would every happen. Its probably gona be on the books for a while.

[fairandbalanced]

Banning the guy with the funny hair only makes him a "martyr" and we have all seen what kind of mischief can come from that.


It serves to reinforce his claims of intolerance and puts an idea in the mind of future voters that maybe they should throw out the boys in power now before they further abridge their freedoms.


Perhaps it feels good in the now but I can't see how forward thinking Muslims in Europe could see this a good thing. It seems unequivocally bad for the prospects of Muslims in Europe from a strategic standpoint. Then there is the freedom of speech issue and the erosion of traditional Western European values. It seems a bad move for Britain too.

The only winner seems to be Geert. Oh well. There is always the Atlantic.

[paulo]

What everyone suddenly seems to of forgotten is.
"LORD AHMED" as he is called, who officiated this ban on Gilders.
Said, if he is allowed to come to the uk, he personally would MARCH AN ARMY OF MUSLIMS 10-000 STRONG, OUTSIDE THE DOORS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
He should be thrown out of parliament and incited for crimes against the state on them words alone.
What a despicable fool he is.
I hope in some way or another he is impeached.
Here's proof he said it.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...of-lords.thtml

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3765

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.c...ment-into.html

ANOTHER"VICTORY FOR ISLAM EH?"
AND YET ANOTHER DEFEAT FOR FREE SPEECH.
seriously this place needs sorting out 1 way or the other.
Muslims and Christians have never ever lived peacefully side by side.
What's going to change all or a sudden now?
I went to Birmingham a couple of months ago for the man city vrs aston villa game.
omg, spot the white man, spot the white man, and the black man lol.
And can some Muslim members of this board, comment on them links please?
Do you agree with what he said?

[Muezzin]

What everyone suddenly seems to of forgotten is.
"LORD AHMED" as he is called, who officiated this ban on Gilders.
Said, if he is allowed to come to the uk, he personally would MARCH AN ARMY OF MUSLIMS 10-000 STRONG, OUTSIDE THE DOORS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Reading comprehension:

'threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organising the event to court’.

Quite a peaceful, litigious 'army', wouldn't you say?

He should be thrown out of parliament and incited for crimes against the state on them words alone.

Those.

What a despicable fool he is.
I hope in some way or another he is impeached.
Here's proof he said it.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...of-lords.thtml

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3765

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.c...ment-into.html

None of them say he wanted to bring an 'army' of Muslims.

ANOTHER"VICTORY FOR ISLAM EH?"
AND YET ANOTHER DEFEAT FOR FREE SPEECH.
seriously this place needs sorting out 1 way or the other.
Muslims and Christians have never ever lived peacefully side by side.

Please do not make me use the Facepalm.

What's going to change all or a sudden now?
I went to Birmingham a couple of months ago for the man city vrs aston villa game.
omg, spot the white man, spot the white man, and the black man lol.

Evidently, there are a lot of non-white and non-black Brummy football fans. If you want to see more white and black men, I suggest you pay more attention to the match next time.

And can some Muslim members of this board, comment on them links please?

Those.

[paulo]

Sorry i forgot the link about 10-000 muslims.
Here it is.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...o-terror.thtml

[Muezzin]

Well, again, that's just commentary. This commentator says he wanted to 'lay siege' to Parliament, the other commentator in your first post said he wanted to prevent him entering the house, and that he threatened legal action.

If you can provide a link to his verbatim quote, I'd be happy to share my thoughts. Right now, exactly what he said is unclear, and seems to depend upon what point the commentator is trying to make.

[fairandbalanced]

Well, again, that's just commentary. This commentator says he wanted to 'lay siege' to Parliament, the other commentator in your first post said he wanted to prevent him entering the house, and that he threatened legal action.

If you can provide a link to his verbatim quote, I'd be happy to share my thoughts. Right now, exactly what he said is unclear, and seems to depend upon what point the commentator is trying to make.

Perhaps the writer engaged in a bit of verbal inflation, but how exactly would 10,000 Muslims stop Geert Wilders from speaking at Parliament if there were not at least some implied threat of violence? They would not be permitted in the dabate chamber, would they? Were they going to lock arms and surround the building in some kind of Ghandian protest, with flowers in their hands and beautific smiles on their faces?

The way I see it from across the Pond, a barely concealed threat of violence caused the government to buckle at the cost of free speech.

[Muezzin]

Perhaps the writer engaged in a bit of verbal inflation, but how exactly would 10,000 Muslims stop Geert Wilders from speaking at Parliament if there were not at least some implied threat of violence? They would not be permitted in the dabate chamber, would they? Were they going to lock arms and surround the building in some kind of Ghandian protest, with flowers in their hands and beautific smiles on their faces?

Who says they wanted to prevent him entering Parliament? A commentator. Where is the man's verbatim statement?

The way I see it from across the Pond, a barely concealed threat of violence caused the government to buckle at the cost of free speech.

In the absence of the man's verbatim statement, that view is the product of hearsay.

Same goes for certain critics of the views of Mr Wilders himself - one cannot criticize a viewpoint without examining it.

[Thinker]

The controversy and publicity worked for me in so far as it caused me to find and watch the video on UTube. For those who haven't seen it, it consists of clips of the 9/11 and other bombings interspersed with verses (purporting to come) from the Qur’an. I'd be interested to know from anyone here who can say whether or not the Qur’anic verses were accurately recorded?

And, I would have liked to have seen someone from the Muslim community produce something showing that the verses were not accurately recorded or explaining how they are out of context (if that is the case).

[Pomak]

The controversy and publicity worked for me in so far as it caused me to find and watch the video on UTube. For those who haven't seen it, it consists of clips of the 9/11 and other bombings interspersed with verses (purporting to come) from the Qur’an. I'd be interested to know from anyone here who can say whether or not the Qur’anic verses were accurately recorded?

And, I would have liked to have seen someone from the Muslim community produce something showing that the verses were not accurately recorded or explaining how they are out of context (if that is the case).

Most of it was, partially mistranslated and incomplete quotes. I mean, if i was morally bankrupt i could dig out quotes of Jesus(or some humanist philosophers) and superimpose them on on footage of the Bosnian war or Chinese/Russian crimes against humanity. And call it a "documentary".
****
"Quran is just that, a book, Islam is what muslims understand the quran+sunnah to be". So really if this guy is "criticizing Islam then he needs to understand what muslims understand these verses to mean. Which he doesn't.

[fairandbalanced]

Most of it was, partially mistranslated and incomplete quotes. I mean, if i was morally bankrupt i could dig out quotes of Jesus(or some humanist philosophers) and superimpose them on on footage of the Bosnian war or Chinese/Russian crimes against humanity. And call it a "documentary".
****
"Quran is just that, a book, Islam is what muslims understand the quran+sunnah to be". So really if this guy is "criticizing Islam then he needs to understand what muslims understand these verses to mean. Which he doesn't.

I understand your point but it seems to me not all Muslims have the same "understanding" of what the Quran and the Hadith mean.

Exhibit one...that embarassing episode in Sudan with the Teddy Bear named Muhammed.

Shall I go on?

[Pomak]

I understand your point but it seems to me not all Muslims have the same "understanding" of what the Quran and the Hadith mean.

Exhibit one...that embarassing episode in Sudan with the Teddy Bear named Muhammed.

Shall I go on?

Sigh seems like you didn't get it. Islam is the understanding of the words on paper(quran and hadith) because words on paper always need interpretation.

I'll give you an example, in the bible there are verses about jesus spreading conflict as well as peaceful verses. It not possible for an outsider to take one verse (and his understanding of it) and call that "christianity", Christianity would be how Christians understand that verse.

As for the Sudan thing, its got more to do with post-colonialism i think rather than religious interpretations. ( i think a black muslim school teacher would of been able to name the teddy and not get into trouble. The problem at the moment is that there are both muslims and non muslims who view the world in a "us vs them" mindframe. aka clash of civilizations theory)

By the way i am not saying that all interpretations are nice and fuzzy, heck no, but rather i am saying that an outsider can't make a judgment on what is Islam based on his interpretation of a bunch of letters.

http://marranci.wordpress.com/2008/0...logy-of-islam/

^ explains it a bit better

[fairandbalanced]

Sigh seems like you didn't get it. Islam is the understanding of the words on paper(quran and hadith) because words on paper always need interpretation.

I'll give you an example, in the bible there are verses about jesus spreading conflict as well as peaceful verses. It not possible for an outsider to take one verse (and his understanding of it) and call that "christianity", Christianity would be how Christians understand that verse.

As for the Sudan thing, its got more to do with post-colonialism i think rather than religious interpretations. ( i think a black muslim school teacher would of been able to name the teddy and not get into trouble. The problem at the moment is that there are both muslims and non muslims who view the world in a "us vs them" mindframe. aka clash of civilizations theory)

By the way i am not saying that all interpretations are nice and fuzzy, heck no, but rather i am saying that an outsider can't make a judgment on what is Islam based on his interpretation of a bunch of letters.

http://marranci.wordpress.com/2008/0...logy-of-islam/

^ explains it a bit better

Oh, I think I understood exactly what you were saying. I am not as dumb as I look. Let me pose this theological question:

If varying interpretations of Islamic writings (sorry if that is not the right word but that seems a safe term) are equally valid, then how can there be only one Islam?

As for outsiders not possessing the capacity to understand Islam or even make the simplest judgements I find that troubling on two fronts.

1) It is vaguely...no it's concretely offensive to non Muslims.

2) Your latter point is what Joseph Heller called a catch 22. Even when those who profess to be Muslim invoke their belief in Islam as a justification for their actions (let's say a fatwa on Rushdie), no non-Muslim can voice a criticism as they lack the intellectual ability or the spiritual awarenes (or whatever the defect is) to understand Islam. Even worse, the "target" is always moving as one set of believers can always claim that a different set of believers have got it wrong and do not represent the "true Islam". It seems to me issuing a global call for the murder of an apostate either is or isn't theologically sound. After all, we are not talking about beard trimming or something.

[Pomak]

If varying interpretations of Islamic writings (sorry if that is not the right word but that seems a safe term) are equally valid, then how can there be only one Islam?

Traditionally the attitude was that each (legitimate) reading of the quran and sunnah was right with the chance of being wrong.

As for one Islam, well in once sense there is only one (from the human perspective) where everyone agrees. For example everyone agrees on the basics. (fasting, hajj, prayer, zakat(charity), shahada(testimony of faith))

Beyond that its an issue of partial disagreement.

But from a wholistic perspective there is the attitude that for every possible action, there always one right action. So always one interpretation is right. But we don't know for sure which one it is, and usually those that say they are right, are in fact wrong.

2) Your latter point is what Joseph Heller called a catch 22. Even when those who profess to be Muslim invoke their belief in Islam as a justification for their actions (let's say a fatwa on Rushdie), no non-Muslim can voice a criticism as they lack the intellectual ability or the spiritual awarenes (or whatever the defect is) to understand Islam. Even worse, the "target" is always moving as one set of believers can always claim that a different set of believers have got it wrong and do not represent the "true Islam". It seems to me issuing a global call for the murder of an apostate either is or isn't theologically sound. After all, we are not talking about beard trimming or something.

Lets take the fatwa on Rushdie. It was done by a Shia scholar, who frankly had some ulterior motives for it. But i get what your getting at and its basically that Islam post 1924, is like this. And the only time its going to change is if there is a central political authority in Islam again(aka Khalifate) but i don't see that happening any time soon.

As for the criticism part, well i don't have an issue with non Muslims criticizing the interpretation. (based on their worldview). For example a chap from Saudi thinks that marriage at 10 is dandy idea, i don't have an issue with non muslims making the argument that 10 y.o. is a bit young. But when non muslims start calling muslims "a bunch of pedos", that is overstepping that line.