Bare Naked Islam posted a video clip of Geert Wilders addressing the judicial panel of his retrial. The video is in Dutch with English sub titles.
In this speech, Wilders asserts that the light of Western Civilization is being snuffed out by Islamization. He also drives home the issue of freedom of expression.
"The lights are going out slowly all over Europe. All over the continent where our culture flourished and where man created freedom, prosperity and civilization. the foundation of the West is under attack everywhere. All over Europe the elites are acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us four fourteen centuries. An ideology that has sprung from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people freedom. The Islamic Mozart, the Islamic Gerard Reve, the Islamic Bill Gates; they do not exist because without freedom there is no creativity. With everything in me I believe the ideology of Islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and can only produce societies that are b ackwaqrd and impoverished. Surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology. My trial is not an isolated incident. Only fools believe it is. All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations.Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass immigration, which will ultimately result in an Islamic Europe - a Europe without freedom: Eurabia. The lights are going out all over Europe. Anyone who thinks or speaks indivdually is at risk. Freedom-loving citizens who criticize Islam or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between Islam and crime or honour killing must suffer, and are threatened, persecuted or criminalized. Those who speak the truth are in danger. The lights are going out allover Europe. Everywhere the Orwellian thought police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back within the confines where it is allowed to think. Chairman, members of the court: This trial is not about me. itr is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country. it is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people. For centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology. Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right. Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it. the lights are going out all over Europe. Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said there last year: It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of a free people - to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom. Hence it is a right and a duty - and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament - to speak the truth about the evil ideology that is called Islam. I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphing from this trial. I hope not only that i shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe. "
My opinion is that Wilders is more relaxed and fluent in the retrial than he was in the first round. He appears to sense impending victory. I suspect that he may have had some coaching. This trial is likely to make history no matter what the outcome.
Pamela Geller brings word that the defense motion for replacement of the judicial panel on grounds of prejudice has finally been granted. The precipitating event was a blog post by Hans Jansen in which he revealed an attempt to influence his attitude toward the trial. The Professor and a member of the appellate court which ordered the trial were invited to a dinner party last May, three days before Jansen testified. The judge engaged the Professor in conversation about the trial, a breech of judicial ethics.
The defense moved to recall the witness, the judges denied the motion, holding open the possibility of recalling the witness at a later time. Seemingly marginal prejudicial statements by the chairman of the panel may also have been considered.
The trial will be repeated at some future date with a new panel of judges, prolonging disruption of the defendant's life and increasing his legal expenses. The trial is a massive waste of time, money and resource and should never have been initiated. The case was initially declined by the prosecutor and imposed by an appellate court. One cartoonist portrayed Wilders plugging a hole in a dike with his finger. In reality, he is sounding a warning about the leak, not plugging it. That role is socially significant and he should not be prosecuted for it. Small Voice, the blog in the second link above, has a chronological list of trial highlights including video clips of the reading of expert testimony.
Reuters reports in a terse article that the Prosecution moved for dismissal on the remaining counts against Geert Wilders. It appears that they differentiate between Islam and Muslims. It is further suggested that Wilders, as a politician, has a right to discuss social problems.
Gates of Vienna has further information. Click here for the complete article, summarizing the Prosecutor's report. Links are provided to the Prosecutor's summary, in two parts.
Part one, seven pages long, relates to the first motion to dismiss a single charge from 10/12.
If the motion is granted, and if acquittal results, and if the decision is upheld on appeal then the precedent may extend only to political office holders, not to citizens.
A politician will , pre-eminently, have a great extent of freedom to persuade others to follow his political views. The articles on discrimination in the Dutch Criminal Code may constitute a possible restriction of said freedom.
An element of ambiguity creeps in regarding the truth defense. Truth is not a defense but provision of substantiation must be considered.
The truth
Wilders has indicated before that he cannot be liable to punishment since what he says is the truth. The truthfulness of Wilders’ statements is by no means being judged in this trial. This is quite irrelevant for the assessment from a criminal law perspective, since the statements concerned constitute Wilders’ opinion. His statements, reflecting his opinion, can be assessed in order to determine whether any provisions concerning discrimination have been violated. Pursuant to European case law, the question whether Wilders provides (any) factual substantiation for his statements must indeed be considered.[Emphasis added,]
Precedents are discussed, from the ECHR. Then comes this tempting tidbit. In assessing this, bear in mind its singular application to opposition politicians and the precedents discussed here. Take careful note of the caution which follows the quote on pg. 4.
A discussion of general interest may involve a certain degree of exaggeration and provocation, i.e. a certain degree of excessiveness.The other side of the coin is that statements which generate feelings of rejection and hostility andincite hatred, may indeed be punishable. Political statements which incite hatred constitute athreat to peace in society and political stability in democratic states. Politicians must be verycareful, since their goal is to accede to power. It is essential that politicians avoid using words thatcould propagate intolerance.
Another prime tidbit emerges from the legalese.
The Supreme Courtdoes not consider the statement ‘stop the tumor called Islam” to be punishable since thestatement does not unequivocally refer to a group of people because of their religion.
It is quite conceivable that people who feel very connected to their religion, feel that they (too) arebeing discriminated against when their religion is being criticized. However, from a legalperspective there is a strict distinction between a statement that refers to a religion and astatement that relates to people who adhere to that religion. Criticizing the opinions or thebehavior of those who belong to the group, particularly including behavior directly related to ordirectly emanating from the religion, is not punishable. Criticizing a religion is not punishable, evenif it is in very coarse language. Any hurt feelings may not be considered in the legal assessmentof the element “insulting about a group of people”
How will you unscramble this egg?
Only impairing the self-respect or discrediting thegroup because it belongs to a specific race, has a specific religion or philosophy of life, ispunishable. Feelings of the group are , as stated above, not considered in this respect. [Emphasis added.]
Read between the lines, inter alia, as they say in the UN resolutions.
When a statement is a contribution to the public debate, is made in the context of a religiousconviction or in the context of an artistic expression, it can dispel the insulting nature of thestatement. This does not necessarily mean that the statement is in practice experienced as lessserious; this concerns the juristic construction as applied by the Supreme Court. We only focus onthe public debate because it is important in this trial.
Part two discusses the other charges and delves into the legislative climate.
When the sections were introduced, avoiding unnecessary restrictions on freedom of expression wasconsidered to be very important. Accordingly, no obstacles under criminal law were imposed oncriticizing views, even if such criticism were offensive. Criticism of the deepest convictions amongreligious people and of religion itself and the institutes and organisations based on religion ispermitted, and the same holds true for Section 137d Sr. Criticism is punishable, however, if itunmistakably targets the actual people, and not merely their views, convictions and conduct.
I don't think the OIC will let that set precedent.
Dangerous ambiguity is encountered on the third page of Part 2.
Intent
The word ‘intent’ does not appear in the description of the offence in Section 137d Sr. Still, ‘instigatinghatred or discrimination’ is regarded as an intentional offence. The intent requirement is contained inthe word ‘instigate’. Section 137d Sr is a formal offence. This means that the possible consequence that may or may notensue from the offence, or the likelihood of that consequence, does not determine whether thedescription of the offence has been fulfilled. The intent of the suspect need not concern a specificconsequence or a specific likelihood of that consequence. The intent is present, if the suspect mustnecessarily have been aware of the hate-instigating nature of the expressions used. [Emphasis added.]
This gets boiled down to essence near the end of page 4. The reference is plural, to Fitna, a letter to the editor and several interviews.
Statements about Islam and the Koran are not instigations of hatred against people.
There is too much legal detail in part one of the Prosecutor's summation, and I am not a lawyer. I have no doubt that this case will be appealed. By this time, lawyers for the OIC must have gone over Part 1 with a microscope, in preparation for appeals. More importantly, their analysis will certainly be reflected in future resolutions and protocols. I hope that ECLJ, Art19, IHEU and others are intensely pouring over the whole set of documents in preparation for round two.
In essence, the Prosecutors have pissed on the OIC's defamation platform without extinguishing the fire. The resulting steam explosion may have devastating consequences. Expect riots. Expect boycotts. Anticipate renewed vigor in the drive toward institution of Islamic blasphemy law through a binding protocol to ICERD.
Google published an article from Canada Free Press about recent developments in the trial of Geert Wilders. One prosecutorial qoute stands out like sore thumb and must be addressed. Thanks and a tip of the hat to Jihad Watch.
"You can expect a politician to be aware of the impact of his words and in any case, the legal limit may not be crossed, no matter how important it may be to address supposed problems and to contribute to matters of general interest," Prosecutor Birgit van Roessel [Emphasis added.]
The relevant statutory provisions are revealed in the summons. Expressions which "insult a group of people" and/or " incites hatred or discrimination" against them are arbitrarily prohibited. No defenses are allowed. If Muslims, motivated by the normative doctrines of Islam enshrined in the Qur'an and exemplified by Muhammad's Sunnah, murder film makers, assault homosexuals, threaten members of parliament and pose an existential threat to the cultural identity and continuance of a free & democratic Netherlands, public disclosure of the facts is prohibited and can not be excused on grounds of necessity. Besides mandating national suicide, the prosecutor has a severe cognitive dissonance problem. She moved for dismissal of charges of insulting Muslims because the insult was to Islamic ideology, not to Muslims. If the insult was to Islam, then the incitement & discrimination must also be against Islam, not Muslims. All of the charges should be dropped, they should never have been filed.
Thanks and a tip of the hat to Vlad Tepes for embedding these informative videos. In these two videos, with a total run time of 19:14, we hear the chairman of the judicial panel reading from the testimony of expert witness Wafa Sultan.
I doubt that the judge was comfortable reading that content, but he made an obvious effort to avoid displaying his disgust. His relief is obvious when he finishes reading the testimony. The defendant and his lawyer were obviously struggling to maintain decorum. A few audience members in the gallery were not so successful in maintaining a straight face. A good view of the prosecution side might have been priceless. Unfortunately, the dry reading of her testimony lacks the passion with which Sultan drove her points home in an interview the day before her testimony. [Wafa Sultan Interview ] Though lacking the chapter & verse specificity of previous testimony, Sultan confirms it plus Fitna and Wilders' statements. She illustrated her testimony with examples from her own experience in her early life in Syria. If truth were a defense against the charges on which Wilders is being tried, Sultan's testimony would be devastating to the prosecution's case. Had her testimony been public and properly covered by the news media, it would be devastating to Islam. Testimony of Wafa Sultan Part 1 12:01 Part 2 7:13
Vlad Tepes published a video clip from the trial of Geert Wilders. Run time is only 4:41, but the dialogue is fact paced, and the sub titles flash by rapidly. On first viewing, I am not certain of the attitude of the chairman of the bench. It seems to be antagonistic, but there may be a subtext of delving deeper into the issues. It could also be some kind of perverse attack, like taunting a bull in the ring. I need to replay the video.
I discover on review that I misinterpreted the Chairman's opening comments. I thought he was closing the court to the audience for the duration of Geert's remarks, instead, he was directing them to let the Court depart first for security reasons. What is the big deal about debate? Does the court desire to engage Wilders in debate on the details of Islamic doctrine & practices to which he objects and which he exposed? Why does Wilders declare that he has said all he has to say on the subject? He stands by his statements, but seems unwilling to give a detailed defense of them. Have the judges, prosecution or defense considered the documentation I published? Does the court expect the defense to prove every point? Would they allow him to speak freely if he tried to offer proof? It appears as though Wilders is wary of being entrapped; provoked to say something outrageous that the prosecution could seize upon to convict him.
The purpose of this blog post is to remind readers of the background information essential to comprehending the resumption of the trial of Geert Wilders.
This quote is from an English translation of the summons which lists the accusations against Geert Wilders. The summons is 24 pages long, detailing many statements.
The aforementioned summoned person is charged with the fact that
1.
he, on one or more dates in or about the period from 8 August 2007 up to and including 27 March 2008, in The Hague and/or Amsterdam and/or (elsewhere in) the Netherlands, on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion, by (each time) intentionally in - De Volkskrant and/or - on the internet on the website www.liveleak.com (in the film Fitna)
placing (having placed) and/or showing (having showed) and/or having heard one or more texts and/or images and/or footage and/or audio fragments with the following content:
(De Volkskrant of 8 August 2007, ‘Enough is enough: prohibit the Quran’)
„A moderate Islam does not exist. It does not exist because there is no distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam. There is Islam and that is it. And Islam means the Quran and nothing but the Quran. And the Quran is the Mein Kampf of a religion that intends to eliminate others and that refers to those others – non-Muslims – as unfaithful dogs, inferior beings. Read the Quran, this Mein Kampf, again. In whatever version, you will see that all the evil that the sons of Allah commit to us and themselves originates from this book (Oriana Fallaci, The Force of Reason, post-script, page 305, February 2006).‟...
2.
he, on one or more dates in or about the period from 7 October 2006 up to and including 27 March 2008, in The Hague and/or Amsterdam and/or (elsewhere in) the Netherlands, on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, incited to hatred of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion, by (each time) in
- De Volkskrant and/or
- De Pers and/or
- Dagblad De Limburger-Limburgs Dagblad and/or
on the internet
- on the website www.geenstijl.nl and/or www.pvv.nl and/or
- on the website of Radio Nederland Wereldomroep and/or the Wereldomroep and/or
- on the website www.liveleak.com (in the film Fitna)
[Emphasis added.]
Notice the prominent mention of Fitna, the publication of which is the basic issue, condemned by many government leaders, the OIC, and the Secretary General of the United Nations. The summons goes on to describe the images in the video and list statements made therein.
o 1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in an way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
o 2. If the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.
Article 137d Dutch Penal Code
o 1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or in an image, incites hatred against or discrimination of people or violent behaviour against person or property of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their gender or hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
o 2. If the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.
Truth is not a defense in the statute. How shall the defendant establish proof of his intent? The law, as written, criminalizes truthful speech on the grounds of perceived insult & inciting hatred, discrimination or violence.
Geert Wilders is an elected member of the Dutch Parliament, in that position, he is entitled to discuss public policy. Islamization is a legitimate subject for public discourse; it is taking place in Europe.
Fitna can be viewed in its entirety by clicking this link. It is divided into two parts on Youtube. I will embed the two parts here so that you can view them.
You will see a few verses from the Qur'an and an English translation . You will hear an Arabic recitation and see graphic depictions of the practical application of the verses.
Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:
“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”
Who expressed hatred in that video? Who incited violence in that video? The Qur'an, not Geert Wilders is the source of hate and incitement. Wilders exposed hate & incitement, he did not perform it.
My earlier blog posts relevant to the trial are linked in the list below.
Wilders Trial Web Site 02/04/10 A great site for gathering information about the persecution.
Geert Wilders Trial: Deceptive Commentary 02/11/10 Six Islam experts sent a letter to the District Court in Amsterdam This post exposes some of their malignant malarkey.
Citizen Warrior posted a video about Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff's case, also linking to a very informative previous article. Wolff & Wilders are on trial in Europe, accused of insulting & inciting hatred against Muslims. Jail terms and heavy fines hang over their heads because they spoke openly and honestly about the damnable doctrines & practices of Islam revealed in its own canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence. Others have been persecuted for truth in Australia, Canada, England and Scandinavia.
In the current political climate, Democrats are desperately seeking ways to squelch criticism of their policies & corruption. Some seek to resurrect the "fairness doctrine", others look to changes in the licensing requirements for radio stations. They need to silence Rush Limbaugh and others who speak truth to power.
Unfortunately, that domestic threat converges with a parallel international threat, Bolstered by the controversy of International Burn a Qur'an Day. The OIC and its member states have been screaming for international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam. At the opening of the 15th session of the Human Rights Council, they urged "internationally oriented preventive measures to combat negative religious stereotyping including denigration of religions"1 and "It is through an outright rejection of such acts and sustained engagement at evolving norms to deal with them that we would prevail against the extremists who are out to rock the very foundations of peacefulcoexistence."2
Two phrases in that last quote need elaboration. "such acts" is a direct reference to International Burn a Qur'an Day but it expands to encompass all questioning & criticism of Islam. "Evolving norms to deal with them" may be wrongly assumed to refer to the annual Combating Defamation... resolutions but it has a more sinister reference. Few beyond the ivory tower heights of international human rights NGOs are aware of this threat to our precious liberty.
The HRC appointed an ad hoc committee to explore and elaborate "complementary international standards"3. The committee's lofty title and charge tell us nothing useful. It is only by scratching beneath the surface that we discover their mission: to write a binding protocol to ICERD which will give the force of international law to the defamation resolutions.
By encoding the content of the resolutions 4 into a protocol attached to ICERD5, they will be made enforcible by the World Court. Signatories will be required by international law to legislate and enforce acts prohibiting criticism of Islam.
..."Even Republicans-Even the great Peter King, Congressman-said that 'Terry Jones is putting our troops at risk; I agree with General Petraeus' blah blah blah. ladies and gentlemen, if our freedom of speech can be seen as putting our troops at risk, then our freedom of speech is going away. Make no mistake about that--our freedom of speech is going away. In Canada, you can't say anything that would offend a group, like Muslims, for instance, that they might consider offensive, oh gee, they call it hate speech. Ya can't say it. ...
Who is to blame for the escalating violence over the Qur'an burning, is it the Pastor himself, is it the Obama Administration or is it the media? I said: common, you left out choice D, which is the correct choice, where it it? Those were the choices, ladies and gentlemen, A, B & C. The correct choice is .... the people responsible for the threat of violence are the scumbag terrorists. Duh. Don't you see how this makes Terry Jones's point? When he says that there's something wrong with portions of Islam? Do you see where we've progressed to or digressed to, on this issue? You can't burn a Qur'an, you can't incite the poor terrorists, you can't do something that will give Usama bin Ladin a recruiting poster, even if it is protected by freedom of speech; the First Amendment, you can't do it; we'll send the FBI to your church, we'll take files out, we'll have somebody close down/ whoever runs your web site/ your provider close it down, which is what happened. The FBI came, the provider said 'oh, you violated such and such a rule-no more web site for the church ' . And they read him the riot act. God knows what they told him. Who knows how they threatened him to get him to stop? God spoke to him and told him not to do it. Of course, first he said he had a deal 'the mosque will not be built there', yeah right, ... but don't you for one minute think that this is not the beginning of the end of the United States of America as you know it.
Remember after 9/11 some started saying well, ... how is this different from the Imam himself who said that we were 'accesory to 9/11, and Usama
bin ladin was made in the united states, that we have Muslim blood on our hands' ? So shat do you expect, how is this different from Rev. Wright; 'the chickens have come home to roost.' 'cuz we support the Israelies & dropped bombs on Hiroshima? How is this different than what they're saying, when you tell a Pastor 'if you burn that book, the terrorists are going to strike and its your fault', how is it different than what Reverend Wright and Imam Rauf and the rest of the skunks say about 9/11 and about this country deserving it ? And whose to blame for 9/11; I always thought it was the terrorists, but if you follow Barack Hussein Obama's logic; Hillary Clinton's logic' General Petraeus's logic; Defense Secretary Gates's logic and I'm sorry to say, just about everybody I've heard from's logic if he';d burned the Qur'an and something had happened, it'd be his fault. How is that?
Now, next in line will be, and we've already heard it, We've heard it from the Imam: he can't move the mosque from where he wants to build it; absolutely not, do you know why? he can't do it ('Our national security now hinges on how we do this and how we speak about it and what we do . It is important now for us to raise the bar...
if we move the radicals have shaped the discourse --the radicals have shaped the discourse on both sides and those of us who are moderates on both sides ..')...
What will they demand next? People like me, speaking up; 'you're inflaming the terrorists'; its our fault. Its terry Jones's fault, its the people who want the mosque moved's fault . Its my fault, don't you get it? Just like its the U.S. Government's fault that 9/11 happened,
And now we, not me, are starting to accept it in this country.
Well, you'd better not burn the Qur'an, don't want to inflame the terrorists, well we don't do anything to upset them-screw'em! What the Hell is going on here?
Wolff & Wilders are on trial for "hate speech" It is assumed by LibTards that revealing the core doctrines & practices of Islam inculcate hatred & incite violence. while in reality, the hatred is inculcated and the violence incited by the Qur'an, hadith, Sira & kutbah based upon them, preached in every mosque every Friday afternoon.
View Fitna. You saw the Qur'an, in Arabic and English. You heard it recited. You saw the Imam's preaching it. You saw the rioting, death and destruction which result. Which is hate speech: the sanctification & mandate of genocidal conquest or exposing it to the world? The Imams who preach from that accursed book should be in the dock, not Geert Wilders.
This is what the Secretary General of the U.N. said about that 17 minute video.
Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:
“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”
The right of free expression is at stake; there is ample justification for Fitna; none for the Qur'an. Ban ki-Moon is guilty of inverting morality.
Wilders & Wolff are being tried under existing national hate speech legislation. If the OIC prevails in its pursuit of tyranny, our nation will emulate those laws and our liberty will be lost forever.
The annual resolutions are getting all the press. Who is paying attention to the activity of the Ad Hoc Cmte. which presents the real threat? The OIC outnumbers us and can out vote us. We can not prevail by lobbying efforts. We can not prevail with bland, inoffensive petitions calling for the defeat of impotent resolutions. We need to raise the political/public relations cost of the OIC's mission to enslave us. We need to use their own methods against them.
Who has the SISU to reveal the truth about Islam? Who will point out the fact that Islam's Qur'an & Sunnah are egregious static violations of existing human rights covenants?
States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:
(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;
(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;
(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.
States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin,
Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
3:110. You [true believers in Islâmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden), and you believe in Allâh. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fâsiqûn (disobedient to Allâh - and rebellious against Allâh's Command).
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.
2:91. And when it is said to them (the Jews), "Believe in what Allâh has sent down," they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us." And they disbelieve in that which came after it, while it is the truth confirming what is with them. Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him to them): "Why then have you killed the Prophets of Allâh aforetime, if you indeed have been believers?" 98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur'ân and Prophet Muhammad from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures. 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
Tabari IX:69 "Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah's helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in Allah's Cause. Killing him is a small matter to us." [Quoted by Craig Winn.]
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
ICCPR, ICERD & CPPCG require that Islam and its canon of scripture & tradition be condemned and proscribed by law. Who will enforce those provisions? They want to amend ICERD to use against us while it already condemns them! How shall we deal with those arrogant violators of human rights? Hoist them on their own petard! Sign, publicized & promote the International Qur'an Petition. You can copy the full, html format petition, complete with links to the evidence and a link to the signature page and paste it into an email, with an exhortation to sign and forward it.
The blog posts listed here contain quotes from & links to the few available documents related to the cmte.
Syria Spews al-Taqeyya 04/13/10 On April 12, 2010, Syria’s U.N. Ambassador addressed the 14th session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Measures to eliminate international terrorism on behalf of the OIC. I have selected three crucial excerpts from his prepared remarks.
Ad Hoc Committee: New Resolutions 03/20/10 Competing Nigerian & American drafts in pursuit of a binding protocol to ICERD for the purpose of outlawing these blog posts.
Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper 08/04/09 The cmte. President's outline of the program of censorship. This document is crucial to comprehending the related posts which follow in this list.
I received an email update from a blog about the case of Geert Wilders. That email contained a link to a pair of videos of an interview with Wafa Sultan who was called as a witness for the defense. Although Wafa Sultan is very articulate, it appears that her knowledge and passion outstrip her ability to communicate them. Between her soft voice, my computer's weak audio card and my hearing loss, I had difficulty with the audio.
When asked, she clearly states her admiration of Geert Wilders and support for his mission. In the first video, the interviewer, who had obviously done some preparation, probed deeply for the circumstances of her apostasy. That part is not easy listening but it is vital to understanding Wafa Sultan and her mission.
The dark side of Islam is exposed to view in the first video, though not in great detail. Wafa Sultan emphasizes the need to read the Qur'an. She exhorts both Muslims and non-Muslims to read it and the Sira.
The second video opens with scenes from the courtroom, narrated in Dutch. That is followed with sound bites from the first interview further questions. It iconsiderably shorter and ends with a brief sports segment.
A third vidio on the page consists of high lights from the vain interview, it appears to be a second generation copy, with much lesser video quality, but the sound track is considerably stronger than that in the original. It, too loses some quality, and there is Arabic chanting in the background.
That third video intersperses Islamic counterpoints between the money quotes. Unfortunately, al-taqiyya & Kitman are employed. I will append a dissection below the video.
Mr. Wilders is well known here for saying that Islam is a backward culture and he has said many times in public that as far as he is concerned, the Qur'an should be banned and people wearing head scarves should be taxed accordingly.
I one hundred percent agree with him. the way they behave against non-Muslims--they are brainwashed to believe--indoctrinated to believe that their mission on earth is to take over and to force non-Muslims to become Muslim. The Islamic values don't match with western values. They're not for freedom.
[Text display] The Truth The Quran instructs Muslims to treat non-Muslims courteously in a spirit of kindness and generosity, given they are not hostile towards Muslims.
I can't find that verse, but I did find these, which contradict that assertion: 38:28, 8:39, 9:29, 9:73.
"Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes--from dealing kindly and justly with them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly. Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion--(forbids) that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers." (Quran 60:8-9)
That tactic is called cherry picking, selecting a verse out of context to distort the meaning. Start reading at the first verse of the surah then go here and search for this expression: as friends.
You have said many times that you are fighting Islam, that you see Wilders as in that same group?
Yes he is, yes we're not fighting Muslims, we are not against Muslims, Even Mr. Wilders has said that many many times. We have to distinguish between Islam and Muslims, we are not against Muslims but we're totally against Islam.
Does that make sense? not against Muslims, but against the Muslim religion, Islam??
If they are against our way of life 'Islam' then quite clearly they are against Muslims too!
I can not deny the fact that Sultan fell into a common logic trap. It would be better to steer clear of p.c. altogether.
But if you're saying that -- you just said "I don't have a problem with Muslims, I have a problem with Islam", now it seems that you have a problem with at least some Muslims.
No doubt about it. I don't want to generalize my attitude, of course I have problems with some Muslims. But I don't want to say every Muslim is a threat, that's not fair. My Mother is a Muslim and she's still stuck in Islam. She is the most peaceful woman on earth, but she's illiterate, she's never read the Qur'an or the life of Muhammad. She practices Islam the way she heard her mother and her grandmother talking about Islam. So that's what I mean, I can not consider my mom as a threat. But she doesn't know much about Islam. But its about Muslims who know.
Now she says the problem is with the 'literate' Muslims who understand Islam & the Quran!
The problem is believing Muslims who understand and attempt to carry out Allah's commands and emulate Muhammad. To fully comprehend this, read 9:111.
But Muslims who have no knowledge of Islam are ok! (according to her)
Do you --you said "I decided to fight Islam itself not just extremism or Wahhabism but Islam itself?
Because I don't believe there is radical Islam, I truly believe the term 'radical Islam' is Muslims trademark. The west invented this term for the sake of being politically correct.
Growing up in Syria I had never heard of radical Islam, Wahhabi Islam, militant Islam, political Islam. I heard only of the one Islam, normal Islam.
And you say all Islam is bad?
No doubt about it. You know, there is no Qur'anic verse that says "don't kill".
Not in those words, but 4:93 tells Muslims not to kill believing Muslims.
According to Islam it is a great sin to kill an innocent person!
It is a great sin to kill a believing Muslim(4:93). Only Muslims can be innocent. Disbelief is equated to waging war against Allah. If you are not a Muslim, you are not innocent.
For that cause we decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or curruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth
Muslims love to quote 5:32, but never quote 5:33, which lists the punishments prescribed for those who wage war against Allah, which is defined to include disbelief. .
Yeah, look, my mission is to create doubt about Islam for the sake of every country on earth--they need to be stopped. This is my message
And you say you are on a mission, when is the mission successful--mission accomplished?
I consider it successful from the very beginning once you believe in something and you are determined to do it you cannot succeed,[sic] eventually we will win I have no doubt...
I have attempted to transcribe the interview. Unfortunately, there is a lot of fast talking, and parts of the audio track are unintelligible. I can't speak a word of Dutch, so I should not knock Geert's fluency in English, but his syntax could be improved.
The point I really want to make is that the Islamic ideology is facing a real threat to our freedom--to our western society so the values of our society are based on Judaism and Christianity; on humanism. And I'm also here in the United States to learn, I mean, the United states is the country when it comes to freedom of speech and I'm here to learn in order to propose a European kind of First Amendment because unfortunately, free speech is on trial In Europe today.
It ain't the ideology that poses a threat, it is the believers' attempt to actualize it that threatens us. The European legal system is so different from ours that I' doubt that our concept of free speech can be adapted to fit the European system. The change would be so revolutionary that I doubt that it can be done in the short term.
You know, I watched the film on line and I would call it fearmongering at best, at worst, it really reminded me of a kind of propaganda thats been used to trigger violence and discrimination from Nazi Germany to Rwanda.
If vampirism was real instead of mythological, and vampires were sucking blood, killing people and turning them into vampires, would exposing them be 'fearmongering'? I would call it sounding a warning. Fitna demonstrates the connection between the words of the Qur'an and the action of Muslim mobs stirred up by Muslim clerics. Arabia, North Africa, nearly half of Asia and a considerable part of Southern and Eastern Europe were conquered by Islam in the past. Millions of people were slaughtered in the process. Europe is in danger of demographic conquest as well as terrorist attacks. The interviewer seems to feel that we should keep silent in the face of those imminent dangers.
Well, unfortunately, this is not true, I mean, I didn't use any actors in the movie, the movie was made by radical Muslims themselves. I used certain Surahs and verses from those Surahs and I used real images from 9/11 and the radical Imam who said that he would conquer the whole world and the death of one of my fellow countrymen in Amsterdam. And so, unfortunately I could not have made such a movie about Christianity; I have to say fortunately I could not make such a movie about Christianity or Judaism. Of course it would be ridiculous to say that all Muslims are terrorists, this is nonsense, but unfortunately, most of the terrorists in the world today are Muslims. And the ideology of Islam is really, and I truly believe that, is a threat to our free society.
Islam is terrorism; therefore Muslims are terrorists. In 3:151, Allah said: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrongdoers). In8:12 Allah again declared that he would cast terror. In 33:26 & 59:2, Allah provides examples of his casting terror and describes the results. Islam's founder bragged about being made victorious by terror, as recorded in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220. Terrorism is a tactic of Jihad. In 8:60, Allah commands Muslims to build the largest possible arsenal, for the purpose of terrifying their perceived enemies. That is related to 8:39 & 9:29 in which Allah comands Muslims to wage war against pagans, Jews & Christians until only Allah is worshiped and the Jews & Christians are subjugated and extorted.
Islam divides the world into two houses: the house of Islam and the house of war. Dar al-harb is wherever Allah's writ don't run. Dar al-harb must be conquered and subsumed into Dar al-Islam. . Islam is perpetual war; terrorism. Without Muslims it would be totally impotent, just books on a shelf.
But you use the extremes of that and in the film...the extremes of people that have, you know, who have lost all reason and I have to ask you: Is it freedom of speech you are talking about or freedom of hate speech?
There are no extremes; there is only Islam as revealed and exemplified by Moe. Those people depicted in the Islamic promotional videos included in Fitna never had any reason to lose, they were brainwashed with Islam from birth. Jihad, terrorism & genocide are not exceptional, they are standard issue Islam.
The Qur'an is a combination of hate speech and incitement to violence.
No. I am not somebody who is in favor of hate speech at all. I want to open the eyes of the political elite in Europe, and maybe even the United States that Islam is not just another religion it can not be compared with Christianity or Judaism. I believe that Islam is more like a totalitarian ideology that rules all aspects of life; it wants to rule all aspects of society, it doesn't want to integrate in society but it wants to submit. So I think it is more to be compared with other totalitarian ideologies like Communism or Fascism. And, of course, I make a distinction between the people and the ideology. I have nothing against Muslims, I hate nobody and the majority of Muslims in our society are law abiding people like you and me. But I have a lot of fear of the influx of the Islamic totalitarian ideology that at the end of the day, I'm sure, unfortunately, will cost us our freedom if we don't stand up and fight to preserve our own identity.
Maududi described Islam as a revolution. Moe called it a deen: way of life. What is it really? Perpetual war. Islam is perpetual war, propagated for the ostensible purpose of making the entire world submit to Islam; for the real purpose of accruing spoils, tribute, power and sex slaves for Moe and his successors. You who doubt this fatal fact need to read the Qur'an & hadith to comprehend objective factual reality. The parts you need to read have been concentrated in "Islam's mercenary Mission"; read it and follow the links to the source documents.
Muslims are here to dominate; to take over and subjugate us, not to assimilate. They intend to force us to submit. Rational and informed lovers of liberty have something against Muslims: Islam. Islam imposes on Muslims a demonic mandate to conquer the entire world and confers upon them a license to kill, rape, enslave and pillage, open season with no bag limit. Participation in Jihad is the only guarantee a Muslim has of not being condemned to eternal damnation. Being killed in Jihad is the only guarantee a Muslim has of obtaining one of the best seats in Paradise.
You know, moderate Muslims in the United States and beyond -- they don't like the extremists either; they don't like the calls to kill non-believers as they are called in the terminology that you quoted. Have you ever thought about joining hands with them to fight the extremism rather than attacking their faith?
Extremists are a figment of your imagination. There are believers and there are hypocrites, whose Islam goes no deeper than their throats. Allah tests them by Jihad to determine which is which. What you call extremism is the doctrine of their faith; its fundamental core tenets. No Muslim can abjure the ayat which command perpetual warfare, terrorism & genocide. To do so is tantamount to apostasy, the penalty for which is immediate death. If you don't believe this or can't comprehend it, then you need to sample Islamic law. Don't worry, the vital parts have been extracted from the 1200 page book and documented for your reading displeasure.
So, like I said before, sir, I am not against--I don't have a problem with Muslims as persons and of course I acknowledge the fact that there are persons who call themselves .....
That is pandering to political correctness; it ain't a good sign.
But wouldn't you admit that the film Fitna is an assault; an attack on the Qur'an and on and the verses in it?
The question implies that there is something wrong about challenging and exposing evil.
Of course, but the Qur'an, according to me, is a fascist book, so my aim is to attack and to expose the real nature of the Quran.
Have you read some of the passages in the Old Testament?
That is the standard diversionary attack: argumentum tu-quoque: "You're one, too!". It belongs in the elementary schoolyard, not in a serious interview about a live and death issue of existential conflict.
Of course I did, and, as you know, the Old testament and I know--everybody knows that passages of the book [unintelligible] and you know, that after the more harsh parts of the Old testament there was a New Testament and the New Testament was more moderate and Christianity went to a place of enlightenment and separation of church and state. And, unfortunately, there is no new Qur'an. I would be very much in favor if the Muslims would get rid all the violent passages from the Qur'an--get rid of it, tear it out of the Qur'an and build it a new, more moderate Islam ...
Muslims can't get rid of the violent passages, because they are Allah's perfected, immutable word, any attempt to alter his word earns the editor a place in Hell fire.
Should all of the violence in the Old Testament and all the calls to kill people and slaughter them--should that also be eliminated; should Christians today and Jews go back and purge their books?
The diversionary attack is repeated, in different terms. The Hebrew genocide mandate expired with the conquest of Canaan. It has no modern validity. Christ did not issue any genocide edicts. There is no New Testament equivalent of Al-Anfal 67.
No, like I said...
No? Just the Muslims...
The interviewer persists in postulating a false equivalence between Christianity and Islam.
Like I said, The Old Testament was followed by a more moderate New Testament whereas we have not seen because Muslims believe its the word of Allah and it can not be criticized there has not been and there probably will not be a new Qur'an and at the same time we have in the world no problem with Christians or Jews with few exceptions, of course out there we have a problem, and all over the world, with the ideology of hatred which is called Islam.
Islam is an ideology of supremacism, genocidal conquest and domination.
The movie Fitna is still available on line. The Qur'an quotes used in Fitna and Wilders' address to the Dutch Parliament are documented in this blog post.
