My Father purchased this book on the Kindle and I felt obligated to read it to see if there was any credence to Wilders arguments. It has been a thoroughly mixed bag. Thought it appears to be well-sourced, many of the sources cited in this book are from old sources (as many as 20 years before the publication of the book in 2012), are now defunct, come from spurious or otherwise questionable sources, or defunct blogs. However, that is not to negate all of Wilders' sourcing, his sources on perpetrated violence and his own story are easy to verify, as well as that of Ayan Ali Hirsi, and various extremist attacks. I did my best in order to evaluate the veracity of many of Wilders source material and assertions, and if I were forced to make an estimate, I would say 70% of the source materials is 'questionable,' 'deliberately misleading,' or, in the case of much of his early history of Islam and the Islamic Empire of the Ummayads, Mughals, and others, flatly untrue. However, there is a troubling 30% or so of his sources that are verifiably true, from unimpeachable sources, academic studies, or personal experience of those who have spoken out, even in moderate form, against Islam, and suffered significant consequences, such as libel suits, death threats, violence, or brutal execution.
As previously stated, the ancient history is completely at odds with legitimate historians, many of the citations in regards to recent developments and supposed accommodations to Islam (such as the legal status of polygamy in western nations, or Muslim only beaches for women) do not hold up to scrutiny or were ideas floated at the time (2006 or earlier) but not followed up on, but there are a number of credible sources that he cites in regards to accommodations that are contrary to freedom and free speech in European countries and the United States. Islam and its adherents certainly needs to become more tolerant of opposing viewpoints, particularly in regards to blasphemy, rather than courting extremism or death threats to those who speak out against it, such as apostates (I.e. ayan Ali Hirsi and others) or politicians. Wilders is correct that some European countries recognize pre-existing plural marriages under the law, and in the case of Britain, allow polygamists extra welfare benefits based on number of wives, so long as they emigrated from a country where polygamy was legal. There are obvious legal and privacy hurdles in attempting to prevent a person who is 'married' to one woman but has several lovers, but that is comparable to adultery, which can hardly be a persecutable crime without a police state. It's a confusing mixed bag. I could not find any European countries that have decriminalized polygamy as Wilders claims.
The idea of the 'no-go zones' is particularly hard to disprove without actually going to these supposed areas; something which the press hasn't gone out of its way to dispel in certain scenarios. The French have, as they were specifically targeted by Fox News, and Fox News was forced to retract the story due to 'shoddy reporting.' Many other countries have not gone as far as to publicly dispel the idea of 'no-go zones.' I did indeed find corroborating reports from legitimate news outlets where leaflets are posted on telephone poles saying that shariah law is enforced in certain areas by Islamists in Britain, with the caveat that police are going to those neighborhoods to tear down the fliers. Regrettably, as soon as the police tear them down, new ones appear. I have also watched television reporters attempt to go in to debunk such ideas being literally driven out of certain neighborhoods, though the precipitating factors are often unknown; I cannot recall specifically where his took place, but it was not an English speaking country, though it did take place in Europe. Turkey is particularly troubling, as it is currently a nation in turmoil with an increasingly autocratic ruler, which was once a bastion of secular democracy in a majority Muslim state. The events that continue to take place in Turkey are indeed concerning.
I checked the publication date of this book and it came out in 2012. Wilders would have had six years (or more) to follow up on many of the dates of questionable sources that he cites. Some of the websites he cites no longer exist or were updated since 2012, which makes it especially curious that he cites them. Of the books he cites, many are out of print, which makes it hard to follow up on their impressions. One book he cites in particular was published in 1993, and it seems a little ridiculous to use that as a secondary source considering at the time of publication the book was 20 years old. That wouldn't be acceptable in academia unless it was a foregone conclusion, however, this situation is ongoing and constantly changes. This gives me the impression Wilders deliberately did not follow up on those sources or stories that did not support his narrative.
In any case, regardless of Islam being a 'young' religion, it must become more tolerant and less violent when 'blasphemed' against. Other religions, by and large, do not resort to violence or death threats when blasphemed against. This is a consequence of living in a free, pluralistic society. If your sensitivities do not allow this, it would perhaps be better to move to a country which does not embody values of free speech and instead protects religion from blasphemy... However, I doubt very much that people would want to live in such countries, as by and large they are either autocracies, monarchies, or anarchy. On this point, that free speech and tolerance of speech that you may not want to hear, exposure to opposing viewpoints, and general liberalism (in the classic sense of the word) are paramount to a functioning society, Wilders and I agree. Also, we must not be willing to make concessions to religions (ANY religions) based on their preponderance for violence if crossed, political clout, or popular support. I think both Wilders and I strongly believe in the First Amendment as well as protection against the tyranny of the majority or practices of accommodation that grant certain religious groups special rights.
I also strongly support free speech, be it from Nazis, crackpots, or provocateurs, so long as they realize their words may have consequences to their relationships or employment (much like getting tattoos may bar you from employment), and that no one has the right to cross the line to violence to suppress free speech. (With certain extreme exceptions as established by the US).
Finally, Wilders' arguments about segregated neighborhoods is not unlike the phenomenon of gentrification and 'white flight' from areas that are predominately 'undesirable groups,' rather than a conspiracy to drive out non-Muslims, though I admit the story that was corrroborated about signs being posted that 'shariah law is enforced here' being reposted as soon as being torn down by police in Britain is concerning.
This is a contentious book, don't get me wrong. Wilders makes some good points, but ultimately by misleading his readers and deliberately misrepresenting source material or history, he does himself no favors. I imagine those without knowledge of the subject, or those seeking to confirm their own bias would see no need to check into the source material; I was not so easily convinced.