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.
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu at SCICA His Excellency Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference addressed the 9th Session of the Standing Committee for Information & Cultural Affairs in Dakar, Republic Of Senegal during the second week of October. '10. The interesting parts are excerpted below, followed by my commentary, linked through superscripts. You can read the entire speech in context through this link.
The rising intolerance of Islamic culture and traditions1 being perpetrated by marginal yet backed by powerful and motivated patrons and ultra right wing extremist political parties2 and their followers in parts of the western world is a matter of alarm to all Muslims . Over the past five years, the OIC had to face daunting and formidable challenges that sought to demean, insult and make mockery of our beloved and revered Prophet Muhammad3 (PBUH), defile the Holy Quran and distort the principles of tolerance4 and compassion5 embodied in Islam. The recent incidents of publication of a book containing the insulting cartoons of the noble Prophet (PBUH) by a Danish newspaper and the call to burn the Holy Quran by a pastor in Florida were disseminated by mass media. It fell on the General Secretariat and the Member States us to sensitize the conscience of the international community through use of the media of the dangerous implications6 of such actions. Mr. President, Excellencies, The OIC had to stand up to a well orchestrated and determined attack to undermine the overwhelming richness and greatness of Islamic culture and traditions and demonize Muslims as terrorists and extremists7. The perpetrators and activists of Islamophobia are doing their best in using all available mechanisms to corrupt the mindset of the ordinary people, in particular the youths, in developing a distorted view8 of Islam and Muslims. This attack on our poses a serious threat to global peace and security9. We are engaged with our Western counterparts to sensitize them of the mischief being caused by intolerance of Islam and Muslims and to encourage them to learn, understand and appreciate the values of tolerance and embracement of diversity10 that lies at the heart of Islamic culture. This culture of intolerance against Muslims and Islam has to be countered by a more committed political will11 on the part of the OIC Member States and I would appeal to all that we realize that it is high time to rise to the occasion. Our policy to deal with the issue should not be based on vengeance or revenge but to effectively prove the senseless absurdity and foolhardiness of those involved in taking the world towards the brink of instability and political and social disorder12. [...] The Observatory has undertaken an active role on countering attacks on our culture by issuing rejoinders and statements of condemnations. At the same time we are actively engaged with the political leadership and reputed international organizations and institutions of the west to underscore our concerns and to draw them to join us on a common platform to combat this dangerous phenomenon13.
We can not and will not tolerate Islam's postulate of divine mandate to conquer & subjugate the entire world, killing, raping and pillaging in the process.
2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459: Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 627: Narrated Ibn 'Umar: The Prophet sent a Sariya towards Najd and I was in it, and our share from the booty amounted to twelve camels each, and we were given an additional camel each. So we returned with thirteen camels each.
"Ultra right wing extremist political parties" paints with a broad brush, smearing those who object to Islamization of Western Civilization with the taint of Nazism. The slur is spewed without naming the parties, specifying their platforms, or offering any evidence.
Muhammad has been dead since 638. He can not suffer any material harm from insults. We are condemned for pointing out the facts that he married a six year old girl and consumated the marriage three years later. We are condemned for pointing out the fact that he was a terrrorist. We found those facts redcorded in Islam's own canon of oral tradition, from his companions, not from his enemies. Is it possible that Allah selected such a man to be his final prophet?
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64: Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
Tolerance? In Islam?? Where??? Allah will not tolerate any competitors! [Emphasis added.]
3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
We can also see how compassionate Allah & Moe are.[Emphasis added.]
24:2. The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allâh, if you believe in Allâh and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allâh's Law).
Once again the veiled threat is repeated. "dangerous implications". Muslims, stirred up by rabble rousing sermons, riot, destroying property and killing people. Instead of blaming the instigators & perpetrators, Muslims and their apologists blame Islam's critics.
Terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam, Established by Allah's word and Moe's excellent example. [Emphasis added.]
3:151. 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).
8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."
8:57. If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.
8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh).
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. [Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331]
The real 'distorted view' is the "great religion of peace" malarkey spewed by Presidtnts Clinton, Bush & Obama.
The threat to global peace and security comes from Islam's demonic mandate to genocidal conquest. Allah demands "great slaughter" and killing and wounding "many of them". [Emphasis added.]
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.
47:4. So, when you meet (in fight Jihâd in Allâh's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till they embrace Islâm (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allâh's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, He will never let their deeds be lost,
Tolerance & diversity! Are Jews allowed to enter Saudi Arabia? How many churches are there in that kingdom?
That paragraph is a coded call for increased support for the annual resolutions "combatting defamation of religions" and the push for a binding protocol to insert the resolutions into ICERD.
The implication is that, by criticizing Islam, we bring the world to the brink of war. That is another incarnation of the veiled threat.
What is the danger in exposing the reality of Islamic doctrine & practice to public view? The only real danger comes from Muslims motivated to kill by those doctrines.
The lead article, a press release from CFI, is followed by a year old video clip of Christopher Hitchens and Lou Dobbs discussing the recent resolutions. After that, we get down to business: a panel discussion on the conflict between free speech and religious sensitivities. The subject at hand is Islamic demands for legislation to shield their deen from criticism. International PEN sponsored the event. Several participants are not native speakers of English and some of the concepts under discussion are not easy to express, so much of the discussion is difficult to listen to. Half of one exchange has been covered by several blogs including Front Page Magazine. Pakistan's Ambassador let fly with some heated remarks and hauled tail when a Canadian human rights advocate responded forcefully. In my view, the Ambassador's rant deserves more scrutiny, which it will receive presently. [Superscripts in the text are linked to my comments. Use your back button to return to the text.] This video is huge. With a download speed of 52K, it took a while to buffer and drained a great deal of memory. I foolishly clicked a link before rewinding to the interesting part, and wound up repeating the process.
From the PEN American Center, United Nations Side-session Panel Discussion with Dr. Agnes Callamard, director, ARTICLE 19 (UK), Professor Tariq Ramadan (Switzerland), Mr. Budhy M. Rahman, program officer, The Asia Foundation (Indonesia); Moderated by Mr. John Ralston Saul, writer, president of International PEN (Canada).
International PEN and its national centers are extremely concerned about ongoing processes in the United Nations aimed at combating defamation of religions. We are also concerned about an initiative by the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, established in 2007 by the Islamic Conference (OIC) and a group of African countries, to draft a treaty that would ban religious defamation. Human Rights protect individual human beings, not institutions or religions. Criticism of religions and religious practices must be allowed, in particular when religions are viewed from a political point of view. As organizations representing writers, artists, and journalists of all faiths and none, we warn against any regulations prohibiting criticism of any religion or any set of ideas.
Against this background we have asked a group of high profile scholars, writers, and human rights defenders to join us for a side event in Geneva on the afternoon of September 16 in Room XXI of the UN Building.
Each year for the last decade, the UN and its human rights commission/council have debated and passed resolutions combating defamation of Islam/religions. Those resolutions give immoral support to local blasphemy laws, which facilitate oppression & persecution of minorities under Islamic regimes. The OIC wants them to be given the force of law so that critics of Islam can be prosecuted in the West. International PEN mentioned the Ad Hoc Cmte. which is working on a binding protocol to ICERD. Not much is known about the cmte.'s work and most people are unaware of it. My series of blog posts on the subject, including quotes from and links to the available documents, have been compiled into pdf files which you can download for study at leisure.
Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document 120KB pdf containing Google's Translation of the French language draft plus links to references and blog posts.
[1:05:08] Ambassador Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the UN, Geneva says he needs more than one minute.. two? wanna limit my freedom of expression? Plenty of opportunity to talk in this building. But not before this meeting, which needs to hear from me because I speak not only for Pakistan but for the Islamic countries here. The President doubts it. Gets three minutes; declares himself "coordinator of the OIC". ,...
I think what you have started here is an unnecessary debate because we in the Islamic world do not look at this as a debate between freedom of expression and freedom of religion.1 We are not opposed to freedom of expression, what we are opposed to is the abuse of this freedom to insult a entire religious faith and belief system as well as the followers of the faith.2 Let me say that we--what we are seeking is equal treatment for Muslims especially in the West. And we believe that we are being denied this equal treatment because of double standards which Mr. Ramadan has also spoken about and we believe that this attitude on the part of the West is a example of sanctimonious arrogance. 3 Laws in the West do protect religious beliefs and there are countries that have blasphemy laws in the West itself. I can give you the names of the countries that do have them: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland and I can tell you each and every article in their constitutions which gives them these laws on blasphemy. The problem sir is also very apparent in the way that the West treats Muslims and the views and beliefs of Muslims and the way it treats for instance, antisemitism. There are laws in Western countries that will put a person in jail for antisemitic statements or denying the Holocaust.4 That is a treatment that is not extended to Muslims in this part of the world.5 The facts speak for themselves. We have before us the cartoon issue.6 We have before us the minaret--the ban on minarets in Switzerland. The posters in this ban campaign showed minarets designed as missiles.7 The linkage to showing that Muslims are in a way people who resort to violence and are dangerous persons.8 There is this film by Geert Wilders called Fitna which equates our holy book the Qur'an with Hitler's Mein Kampf. Not a single verse from the Qur'an has been quoted to demonstrate that Muslims or our Qur'an or our belief promotes violence by Mr. Wilders.9 The ban on the burqa10, the ban on the mosque in Manhattan11, and this 'burn a Qur'an day12'-- they are all manifestations of the same thing that is going on--that is taking place in the West13. Mr. Obama has taken a position against the burning of the Qur'an.14 And what has he been labeled as?15 A Muslim and he himself is denying that he is a Muslim as if being a Muslim is a crime16. What if he is a Muslim?17 That is somehow--we feel that it is extremely offensive18. There is racial profiling against Muslims19. Even if you are the most respectable person you are separated and you are put into a different pew when you are at an airport. Everyone of your bags is opened; you are stripped down to your --your clothes are stripped off your body; these are the realities of treatment that is being extended to Muslims in the West today20. So it is not about the defamation of Islam, sir, it is about the victimization of Muslims that has to be addressed and that is what we are seeking here.21 We are being linked to terrorism whereas terrorism has no religion22; there are examples of terrorists in every religious denomination. The IRA were not Muslims, they were Catholics. So -- and there are several other examples of terrorism that are [unintelligible] . Instead of promoting your view and other Western views; instead of promoting a dialog between Islam and other religious denominations os actually serving the cause of those who want to use religion and want to use this disinformation against Islam23 to promote greater victimization of Muslims. There is a failure and actually a refusal to try and understand what we are trying to say. [1:11:01 Interrupted by Raheel Raza]
"Thank you very much. I am a Canadian of Pakistani heritage and I would like to totally rebut what the honorable Ambassador here has said. I have lived in the West for over 25 years, I don't know where he's been living, but I think Muslims have more freedom in the West than they ever have in many Muslim lands. When you talk about inter-faith dialog there is absolutely no intra-faith dialog going on between the Muslim communities and dialog is a two way street. Mr. Ambassador, sir, I'm responding to what you said, so it is rude of you to get up and leave. However, I will say this for the rest of the audience here, that this is absolutely unacceptable; I mean freedom of speech is the most important human right we have and I totally support freedom of expression even if it is against my faith. When he speaks of Geert Wilders, Geert Wilders has the absolute freedom to say what he wants; it doesn't affect me personally, and neither does it harm my faith. The Western world, the Canadian Prime Minister and the American President were the first ones to condemn the burning of the Qur'an by the American Pastor Terry Jones. I would never have the freedom to stand up and speak as I do here in my own country of birth. So certainly, when we are talking about equal treatment of Muslims in the West. And also I would like to comment about Professor Ramadan spoke at length about western values--the western world; this is not a debate between Muslims and the West and unfortunately that is what it comes down to that is being divisible we are speaking here about human rights that extend to all faiths. And lets get over this victim ideology that we are Muslims and we are being persecuted and lets talk about the freedom of everyone in the room here today and lets get to the point of freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.
1:13:22 Professor Ramadan answers some proceeding questions. I am not able to transcribe his remarks, his mind and mouth are not in synch.\ and I can't type fast enough. It is an important statement, which needs to be considered carefully and deliberately. Watch the gestures and expressions as you listen to his answer. He has a recent op ed piece that may help to clarify matters.
The debate is crucial because the OIC is demanding international and national legislation to criminalize all questioning & criticism of Islam. Islamic law expressly forbids all negative expression about Islam, its deity, Profit & scripture. Violation is punishable by execution. In essence, they want that law extended to and imposed upon us. The journalists seek to preserve the right of free expression, which is essential to the maintenance of cemocracy & liberty. Liberty can not be preserved if we can not issue warnings of threats to it. If we can't reveal the truth about Islam, we can't issue those warnings.
o11.10 -5- or mentions something impermissibleabout Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.
o11.11 When a subject's agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).
o9.14 When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: 025) considers the interests (0: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
4U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext & Context 09/08/08 This post contains vital information about the documents which serve as a basis for the treacherous resolutions passed by the General Assembly & Human Rights Council. It also has a link to the prime source of UN resolutions.
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.
Their scripture says that Jews "earned Allah's wrath" and "Christians went astray". It says that Allah, men and angels curse us. It describes us as the worst of living creatures. But we must not be allowed to reveal how their Profit married a six year old girl, murdered critics and was a terrorist.
Is there a better example of hypocrisy?
The U.S.A. does not have a blasphemy law, neither does it outlaw Holocaust denial. We allow open debate.
Criminalization of Holocaust denial is not a service to a religion, it is an exaggerated and mis-applied fear of a Nazi revival. Holocaust denial is not analogous to factual & rational criticism of Islam.
The Motoons, like most good comedy, include an element of exaggeration. They reflect the fact that Muhammad was, by his own admission, a terrorist. Here is what he said:: " I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)," and "Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. " The quotes come from Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 & 1.7.331.
See the image and relevant quote at Andrew Bostom's site. Erdogan said that the "Minarets are our swords".
To the extent that Muslims are believers; to the extent that they implement Allah's imperatives they are dangerous and violent.
Fitna involves several verses from the Qur'an which are documented here: Fitna: Supporting Documentation 03/27/08. Those verses prove clearly and beyond doubt that Islam is intrinsically violent and aggressive, by design.
The burqa ban combines a tangential swipe of the cat's paw with a valid security interest. Anonymity can lead to impunity.
There are valid reasons for objecting to the mosque of triumph at ground zero. Even Tariq Ramadan agrees that the Park 51 project is an unnecessary provocation and insult to the surviving victims of the attack. If built, it will serve as a psychological boost to the proponents of terrorism.
Besides being a tangetial attack on Islam, burn a Qur'an day served to raise public awareness of the content of that vile volume of lies & threats. The books that were torn and burned were translations, not sacred books. Only the Arabic text is considered sacred and authentic.
Growing public awareness of the threats posed by Islam, both militant, demographic and political, is bringing about increasing resistance & objection to the spread of the war cult.
President Obama condemned burn a Qur'an day. He has not condemned Bible burning with equal intensity. Neither has he vociferously condemned burning Christians and churches. His bias is evident.
President Obama was identified as a Muslim long before his condemnation of bun a Qur'an day. His Muslim father makes him Muslim by default. His expressed admiration for the Adhan is another marker. His enrollment in primary schools as a Muslim documents the obvious. His conmversion to Christianity is an obvious political convenience. His expressed "duty" to protect Muslims from negative stereotyping stands outas clear evidence; it is not in his job description!
Is membership in the Mafia a crime? Should membership in an organized crime syndiicate be a crime? Moe began his criminal career with raids on camel caravans returning from trade missions. He graduated to invading local Jewish settlements, then to invading nearby kingoms. He sent extortion letters to his intended victims. He said that the "keys to the treasures of the world" had been given to him. He told his companions: By Allah, I am not afraid that you will be poor, but I fear that worldly wealth will be bestowed upon you as it was bestowed upon those who lived before you. So you will compete amongst yourselves for it, as they competed for it and it will destroy you as it did them." He said" The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us, This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.".
A Muslim President, when America is under attack and threat of attack by Islam, is an exemplar of treason, the equivalent of a Nazi President in WW2.
Clarify that; the pronoun refers to:
the 'Muslim' lable
the denial
the implication that Islam is criminal
does the implication belong to President Obama ?
Who hijacked those aircraft? Was it elderly Baptist widows? Who tried to blow up Times Square? Was it a middle aged Catholic? Whp are the perpetrators of Islamic acts of terrorism? When we hear hoofbeats, we look for horses, not unicorns.
Subjecting all passengers to intrusive searches is time & money wasting idiocy. The simple solution: exclude Muslims from mass transit.
What is in the titles of the UN resolutions? "Combating defamation of Islam"..."combating defamation of religions". If the issue is 'victimization, why is that not reflected in the titles?
Examine what Brig. S.K. Malik wrote in "The Qur'anic Concept of War", a training manual for the Army of Pakistan. "Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponens heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him."
Does anyone perceive the cognitive dissonance in this sentence? Inter-religious dialog is a weapon against Islam?
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.
Muslim Response created an animated cartoon to portray Pastor Terry Jones as an ignorant bigot and Islam as a religion of peace. With a cartoon, it is easy to set up Jones as a straw man, conceal the evil aspects of Islamic doctrine & paractice and paint Islam in a beutific light.
Thanks and a tip of the hat to Logans Warning for bringing this to my attention. The video is a well drawn animated cartoon with poor audio quality. Its theme is an encounter between a passing Muslima and Pastor Jones attempting to burn Qur'ans. It runs about three and a half minutes. As the dialog between Jones and the Muslima continues, his flock picks up Qur'ans and departs one by one, as if the Muslima's lame excuses for Islam are converting them. Lets take it point by point.
Islam is of the devil.
Yes, we say he interviews in which the title of his book was mentioned, and we saw the interviewers keeping Jones busy, never letting him get down to details. Allah was one of 360 idols ensconced in the Kabaa in the seventh century, until Muhammad conquered Mekkah and destroyed the other idols. Allah is a moon deity, note the crescent moon on the domes of mosques. At various times and places, Allah went by other names, including Sin.
Who demands sacrifice, human blood? Is it the God you worship or his adversary? When Muslims slaughter sheep, goats and camels for Eid, what do they say while slitting throats? What were the last words heard on the cockpit voice recorder of Flight 93? What did they say when they slit Nick Berg's throat? Why is Allahu Akhbar! pronounced on all those occasions? Does God really desire human blood in genocidal quantitiy? Allah does. The Qur'an has a clue for you. I will emphasize key phrases for clarity.
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.
What does Allah desire? What does Allah require as a prerequisite? Does God declare perpetual war against Jews & Christians? Who does?
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.
The Qur'an refers reverentially to the Bible.
2:41. And believe in what I have sent down (this Qur'ân), confirming that which is with you, [the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)], and be not the first to disbelieve therein, and buy not with My Verses [the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] a small price (i.e. getting a small gain by selling My Verses), and fear Me and Me Alone. (Tafsir At-Tabarî, Vol. I, Page 253).
Ain't that wonderful, the Qur'an confirms the Bible. Yeah, right. We will revisit this subject soon.
The Qur'an respects Jesus Christ. Yeah, right, as Allah's slave, a genocidal warlord who will exterminate the remaining Jews & Christians just before the end of the world.
Is Jesus the son of God? Does he divine? Was he crucified? Was he resurrected? If you remember anything from Sunday school, you will recognize the fact that the Qur'an, while claiming to confirm the Gospels, contradicts them.[Emphasis added.]
4:157. And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ]:4:158. But Allâh raised him ['Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allâh is Ever AllPowerful, AllWise. 4:159. And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), but must believe in him ['Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allâh and a human being], before his ['Iesa (Jesus) or a Jew's or a Christian's] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he ['Iesa (Jesus)] will be a witness against them. 23:91. No son (or offspring or children) did Allâh beget, nor is there any ilâh (god) along with Him; (if there had been many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have tried to overcome others! Glorified be Allâh above all that they attribute to Him! 3:61. Then whoever disputes with you concerning him ['Iesa (Jesus)] after (all this) knowledge that has come to you, [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus)] being a slave of Allâh, and having no share in Divinity) say: (O Muhammad ) "Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves - then we pray and invoke (sincerely) the Curse of Allâh upon those who lie."
Instead of confirming the Gospels concerning the papternity, deity, death & resurrection of Jesus, the Qur'an contradicts them, declaring that Allah has no offspring and Jesus is his slave. Can there be anything worse than this? Of course there is!
What is the Islamic interest in Jesus? Why to Muslims revere him? Because of their eschatology. Its all about what they believe he will do when he returns. In a word: genocide. I now present for your enlightenment a hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud, ranked third in autenticity among the canonical collections. I have added emphasis to make the important phrases stand out for you.
Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310: Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
That phrase is a code for exterminating Christians.
kill swine
That phrase is a code for exterminating Jews.
abolish jiaya
Jizya is paid by conquered or intimidated Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. When they are extirminated, there will be nobody left to pay it.
perish all religions except Islam
Jesus will wage war on them and exterminate them.
Put those points to a Muslim and he will swear that I am a liar, twisting and distorting the Qur'an and haidth. Unfortunately for that Muslim, there is more clear evidence to prove him wrong. 7:167 says that Allah will continually send someone to torment the Jews. Ibn Kathir's Tafsir of that ahyeh holds a secret clue for you.[Emphasis added.]
Eternal Humiliation placed on the Jews ...In the future, the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa, son of Mary, will kill the Jews. This will occur just before the end of this world. ...
The Qur'an has a chapter dedicated to women. Indeed it does, Surah An-Nisa'
What is the relationship between the Muslim woman and her husband?
2:223. Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth (have sexual relations with your wives in any manner as long as it is in the vagina and not in the anus), when or how you will, and send (good deeds, or ask Allâh to bestow upon you pious offspring) before you for your ownselves. And fear Allâh, and know that you are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give good tidings to the believers (O Muhammad ).
Tilth litteraly means "field to be plowed". And the prohibition on sodomy is not to be found in the Arabic text. Visit this site and scroll down to the beginning of 2:223, then scroll through it.
Of course the relationship is more complex than that. [Emphasis added.]
4:34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allâh has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allâh and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allâh orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see illconduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allâh is Ever Most High, Most Great.
There is another little detail the Muslima withheld from your virgin ears. I am not so shy: women are deficient in intelligence & religion![Emphasis added.]
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." 2:282. O you who believe! When you contract a debt for a fixed period, write it down. Let a scribe write it down in justice between you. Let not the scribe refuse to write as Allâh has taught him, so let him write. Let him (the debtor) who incurs the liability dictate, and he must fear Allâh, his Lord, and diminish not anything of what he owes. But if the debtor is of poor understanding, or weak, or is unable himself to dictate, then let his guardian dictate in justice. And get two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her. And the witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (for evidence). You should not become weary to write it (your contract), whether it be small or big, for its fixed term, that is more just with Allâh; more solid as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves, save when it is a present trade which you carry out on the spot among yourselves, then there is no sin on you if you do not write it down. But take witnesses whenever you make a commercial contract. Let neither scribe nor witness suffer any harm, but if you do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So be afraid of Allâh; and Allâh teaches you. And Allâh is the All-Knower of each and everything.
A claim is made that the Qur'an is compatible with the Constitution. Unfortunately it is so mumbled that I can not decipher it word for word. it begins at 2 2 minutes 18 seconds into the video.
Our Constitution specifies that laws are made by a bicameral legislature, by majority vote in most cases. The Qur'an specifies that Allah's word is law and his decisxion is final.
33:36. It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.
Our Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual" punishments. The Qur'an specifies amputation & lashing.
5:38. Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allâh. And Allâh is AllPowerful, AllWise. 24:2. The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allâh, if you believe in Allâh and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allâh's Law).
Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The Qur'an says that Muslims must wage war to give Allah a global monopoly.
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
5:32 is quoted, asserting that killing one innocent person is the moral equivalent of global genocide. This quote is used to disclaim 'radicalism'.
5:32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allâh by committing the major sins) in the land!.
Did you notice the exceptions: murder & fitna? The devil is in the details, and Muslims always conceal the vital details. They will not quote the next verse. Why do they conceal it? Surah Al-Ma'idah 33 specifies hudud for fitna & "waging war against Allah and his Messener".
5:33. The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.
Just what is this great sin that subjects one to being killed, crucified, mutilated or exiled?? Once again Ibn Kathir comes to the rescue with a clear definition. [Emphasis added.]
Is that clear enough for you? Disbelief is waging war against Allah. If you don't believe, you can be crucified or mutilated. The video ends with an exhortation to read the Qur'an. That is the one part I agree with. Read it, and learn what is really in it. The Qur'an is widely available on the web, you can read it without buying a copy. The King Fahd Complex presents the Hilali & khan translation, which is 95% accurate. The inaccuracies are intentional. They relate to 'fight' in which case the real word is fight/kill, essentially wage war, and 'marry' in which case the true word is a four letter obscenity.
I gave you a link to 2:190, because the translator's footnote defines jihad with great clarity. You can selelect any Surah and ayeh from drop down boxes. You should, at minimum, read Surahs 2,3,4,8,9,33,48 & 61. To fully comprehend those Surahs, you should supplement them with the authentic hadith of Bukhari. I recommend Books 52, 53 & 59.
