Interviewer Tries to Trap Geert Wilders

I found this video at Bleed the Soul, through a Google Alert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lMkwH9ODCU&feature=player_embedded



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). In 8:12 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.

• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-0.html Jihad defined as making war on kuffar.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-1.html The communal obligation to attack kuffar at least once each year.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-8.html The caliph makes war on Jews... codification of 9:29.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-9.html The caliph fights all other people... codification of 8:39.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO25-9.html The eighth duty of subordinate rulers: to undertake Jihad.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO11-5.html Restrictions on dhimmis.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO11-10.html Acts which violate Dhimma, subjecting the violator to the death penalty.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-13.html Women & children enslaved by reason of capture.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO8-7.html List of acts entailing apostasy.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO8-2.html Penalty for Apostasy.

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.

Sphere: Related Content

Geert Wilders: Free Speech on Trial

As the trial of Geert Wilders resumes, we should carefully examine its substance and procedures. Writing on the Editorial Page of the Wall Street Journal, Leon De Winter says "Stop the Trial of Geert Wilders"

On trial is not so much Geert Wilders, but the Holy Book of Islam. ... So it is quite conceivable that the court will judge that Geert Wilders was within his right to compare the Quran to "Mein Kampf."

The three judges hearing the case—no doubt decent, modest, postmodern Dutchmen with a minimum knowledge of Islam and its culture and traditions—will now be forced to debate the nature of a religious text, something that should have never been heard in the court of an enlightened society. In front of the judges and television cameras, the ancient founding text of an entire civilization will be criticized and weighed against one of the most inhumane texts written in the 20th century—without any doubt a deep insult to Muslims, radical or not.

In the view of one Dutch journalist, the trial has been inverted, exchanging the defendant and complainant, resulting in an insult to Muslims over and above the alleged insults issued by the defendant. He wants the trial stopped.

Unfortunately, there is reason to doubt the chances of an inverted trial. While it is obvious that Wilders is planning a defense based on necessity and veracity, it is not certain that the court will consent to allow those defenses to be presented. An article by Arthur Legger, published by Tidsskriftet Sappho, reveals some details about he trial of Geert Wilders. A surprising statement from the Public Prosecution attacks Wilders' truth defense.

“It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct”, the ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ stated, “what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.

The indictment was amended to include accusations of racism. I suspect that was done as an end run around this precedent.

For in a comparable case the Dutch High Court acquitted a Dutchman of his earlier conviction of ‘Group-insult’ of Muslims. He had been sentenced to jail for hanging a poster in front of his window that stated: “Stop the cancerous growth named Islam”. The High Court ruled that “if one insults a religion, one doesn’t automatically insult its believers”.

Fokko Oldenhuis, Groningen University professor Religion and Law, is quoted as saying:

“He discriminates Moroccans because of their race and causes hate against them”; “His desire to ban the Koran brings fear and terror into peoples homes”.

Does the banning of Nazi literature bring "fear and terror" into the homes of neo-Nazis? Did Wilders call for assaults, murders and pogroms? Did he urge his audience to riot and burn Korans? What then is terrifying about his statements?

Take a clear eyed look at the laws Wilders is accused of violating. The International Free Press Society posted this link to an English translation of the summons. Jihad Watch reproduced it in this article. [Bold face emphasis added to critical clause for clarity.]

Article 137c Dutch Penal Code

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.

Insulting and inciting are undefined, thus they are highly subjective. In effect, guilt is presumed arbitrarily; no defense is possible against these charges. If Geert Wilders is found guilty and the law is upheld, the code reproduced above will become boilerplate for national and international legislation demanded by the OIC & UN.

Critical Issue

Geert Wilders perceives Islam as an existential threat to his society. The threat arises from Islam's Jihad doctrine which mandates world conquest. The conquest is not limited to military and terror attacks, it also takes the form of demographic conquest, which Europe is now experiencing.

The threat is real, proximate and persisting. Pim Fortune and Theo Van Gogh were assassinated by Muslims. Aayan Hirsi Ali & Geert Wilders have needed 24 hour security because of death threats. French Muslims have done millions of dollars in property damage by rioting.

Wilders documented the threat by quoting Qur'anic violence imperatives and displaying video of Imams ranting about killing disbelievers. He also displayed video of a hostage being decapitated.

Wilders spoke out about a threat to his nation, documented that threat and called on the government to mount a defense. For that he is being persecuted.
The summons includes a frame by frame analysis of Fitna and out of context quotes from newspaper interviews. The pdf file is more than 20 pages long.

Geert Wilders spoke in New York City September 25 '08. Sheik Yermami provided a transcript.

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza.

In April of '09, Wilders spoke at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Iranic Surrealism has the transcript.

Allow me to give you a brief introduction to Islam, an Islam 101. The first thing everyone needs to know about Islam is the importance of the Koran. As you probably know the Koran calls for submission, hatred, violence, murder, terrorism and war. The Koran calls upon Muslims to kill non-Muslims. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs. The biggest problem is that the Koran is to be considered as Allah’s personal word, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. That’s the reason why the Koran is not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims, but a moderate Islam does not exist. As the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan once said: “There is no moderate Islam, Islam is Islam”. For once I have to agree with this islamist Turkish Prime Minister.

October 22 '09, Wilders spoke at Columbia. Answering Muslims has video of the speech. Is the content of those speeches factually true? The answer is contained in Islam's canon. http://snooper.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/fitna-supporting-documentation/ documents the Qur'an quotes contained in Fitna. and Wilders' address to the Dutch Parliament.

When the trial resumes, the judges could dismiss the case. More likely, they will rule on Wilders' proposed defense and witness list. If they severely restrict the latter and/or close the trial to the press, we can assume that the outcome is preordained and that our precious liberty has suffered a vital blow.

The enemy seeks to suppress our right to identify, name and shame them so that, in the words of George Washington,

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

Let us make good use of our precious freedom while we still have it. Let us echo and amplify the warning call issued by Geert Wilders. Let us summon our fellow citizens to join us in disrespectfully demanding the preservation of the right of free expression without which we stand defenseless against impending tyranny. In this step, they squelch our criticism of Islam; in the next, they squelch our criticism of Socialism. One will follow the other as surely as rain and wind follow storm clouds.

I have furnished links to Wilder's documentary and speeches. I also furnished a link to another blog post which documents the most essential facts presented in those warning calls. What you do with them is up to you. Will you read the speeches and documentation, watch the video and share them or will you go back to sleep, ignoring the dangers that face us?

Sphere: Related Content

Combating Defamation of Religions: the Substance

The final text of the Combating Defamation of Religions resolution (passed 12/18/'09) spans pages 67-72 of a 151 page pdf file: A/64/439/Add.2, part II. If you want to read it aloud, you'd better take breath control lessons, because the resolution is basically one long run on sentence. It begins by recalling and reaffirming previous resolutions and documents. The trip down the memory lane sewer is followed by a series of statements of alarm and concern.

Expressing serious concern at the increase in racist violence...

Are they seriously concerned about the recent burning and looting of Christian churches, homes and businesses in Egypt & Pakistan? Of course not, that is not what concerns them.

as a result, inter alia, of the resurgence of activities of political parties and associations established on the basis of racist, xenophobic and ideological superiority platforms and charters, and the persistent use of those platforms and charters to promote or incite racist ideologies,

No, their concern is about the Dutch Freedom Party and similar parties in Europe which express concern about Islamic encroachment & demographic conquest. But they are deeply concerned about:

the negative projection of certain religions in the media

Next they progress to stressing:

the defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

Do they refer to these examples?

• 1:7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
• 8:55. Verily, The worst of moving (living) creatures before Allâh are those who disbelieve , - so they shall not believe.
• 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!
• 9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).
  

Islamic scripture calumniates Jews, Christians and disbelievers in general, then it declares war and incites violence against them. Where is the U.N.'s concern about that prime exemplar of evil? See what else they are stressing.

the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general,

Reaffirming that discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes a violation of human rights and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter,

What is defamation of religions; what constitutes incitement to hatred? Who decides? I direct your attention to Ban Ki-moon's egregious condemnation of the short documentary by Geert Wilders.

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 man chiefly responsible for enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that there is no right to tell the truth about Islam. [Emphasis added for clarity.] Fitna is not hate speech nor is it incitement; it accurately depicts Islamic hate speech and incitement.

Demonstrating the intimate connection (cause & effect) between Islam's scripture and violence evidently constitutes hate speech and violence. Take a good long look at the incidents the OIC complains about in their Islamophobia report. Here is what it all boils down to.

Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

Human rights violations? Such as the right to life? How about the right to be secure in their person and property? How are our rights affected by the declaration of war previously cited (9:29)? How are our rights affected by Muhammad's complete denial of them, as well as the sanctity of our blood & property?

Is Islam wrongly associated with terrorism? Who created that association? What did Allah say about terrorism?

• 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. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.
• 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.
• 59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).
• 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).
  

Allah said that he would cast terror, Muslims must cast terror, and they did cast terror. What did Muhammad say?

• Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331 [...] Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. [...]
• Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220 [...] I have been made victorious with terror [...]

Allah said he would cast terror, Moe said he was made victorious by it. There is nothing wrong with the association of Islam with terrorism! Lets look at the specific application of the wrongly associated meme.

Reiterates the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which was adopted without a vote by the General Assembly on 8 September 200614 and reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and which clearly confirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group, stressing the need to reinforce the international community’s commitment to promote a culture of peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures and prevent the defamation of
religions;

Any association of Islam with terrorism is defamatory by default. So I have defamed Islam by quoting from its own canon of scripture and tradition. Yeah, right. What is the bottom line?

Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and encourages States, in their follow-up to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,7 to include aspects relating to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in their national plans of action and, in this context, to take forms of multiple discrimination against minorities fully into account;

Do you remember what Ban said about Fitna ("incitement to violence")? They postulate a national obligation to criminalize documentaries such as Fitna and this blog post.

The Combating Defamation of Religious resolutions are propaganda, not law. But they serve to add a false patina of legitimacy to existing blasphemy laws in Pakistan and other places where they are used to persecute adherents of minority religions. They also create an atmosphere of support for the proposed protocol to ICERD which is slowly progressing in the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. That protocol will become binding international law.

For an extensive bibliography refer to: Defamation of Religions: Background Info. To find U.N. documents referenced in the resolution's foot notes use this search engine.

Sphere: Related Content

H.R. Clinton: Free Speech

Remarks on the Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century


Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Georgetown University's Gaston Hall
Washington, DC
December 14, 2009

In our first session, we cosponsored the successful resolution on Freedom of Expression, a forceful declaration of principle at a time when that freedom is jeopardized by new efforts to constrain religious practice, including recently in Switzerland, and by efforts to criminalize the defamation of religion – a false solution which exchanges one wrong for another. And in the United Nations Security Council, I was privileged to chair the September session where we passed a resolution mandating protections against sexual violence in armed conflict.

The Secretary of State packed three lies into the single sentence quoted above.

1. The cited resolution is not a forceful declaration of principle. While it is acclaimed as a rejection of the concept of 'defamation of religion', it embraces 'negative stereotyping' as a grounds for outlawing expression, a distinction without a difference. The clear intention is to make criticism of Islam a criminal offense.
2. The Swiss ban on minaret construction does not impair practice, it outlaws erection of a symbol of supremacism. I find no mention of minarets in the Hilali & Khan Noble Qur'an translation. I find no reference to the construction of minarets in the four top hadith collections & Ibn Kathir's Tafsir except to the rebuilding of one destroyed by fire.
3. There is no wrong to exchange; declaration of the fact that Muhammad, founder of Islam, was a terrorist is not wrong, neither is it an act which should be criminalized. While the Motoons exaggerate, they expose reality. Exposing the violent verses of the Qur'an is not wrong, it is an an exposure of intrinsic evil, as in the case of Geert Wilders' documentary, Fitna. There is no justification for outlawing Fitna and the Motoons. Unlike Islamic scripture, they neither inculcate hatred nor incite violence. The riots which followed publication of the Motoons were incited by incendiary sermons at Juma Salat, not by the Motoons.

Sphere: Related Content

U.S.A. vs Durban Declaration

A press release distributed by Press Zoom appears to be taken from the records of the Third Committee, describing the debate and voting on several resolutions before the committee.

Those resolutions included the five-part draft text on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action ( document A/C.3/64/L.54/Rev.1 ), which was introduced by the representative of Sudan, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

32. Calls upon all States, in accordance with the commitments undertaken in paragraph 147 of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action,1 to take all necessary measures to combat incitement to violence motivated by racial hatred,
including through the misuse of print, audio-visual and electronic media and new communication technologies, and, in collaboration with service providers, to promote the use of such technologies, including the Internet to contribute to the fight against racism, in conformity with international standards of freedom of expression and taking all necessary measures to guarantee that right;

33. Encourages all States to include in their educational curricula and social programmes at all levels, as appropriate, knowledge of and tolerance and respect for all cultures, civilizations, religions, peoples and countries, as well as information on the follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; [Emphasis added.]

Paragraph 32 quoted above is aimed directly at all criticism of Islam. Its practical implementation is best illustrated by the words of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

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.” [Emphasis added for clarity.]

The man chiefly responsible for enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that there is no right to tell the truth about Islam. Fitna is not hate speech nor is it incitement; it accurately depicts Islamic hate speech and incitement. The pending trial of Geert Wilders on charges of hate speech is a prime example of the violation of freedom of expression intended by the sponsors of this resolution.

Paragraph 33 encourages turning our schools into instruments of propaganda & indoctrination, bordering on proselytizing. It is impossible for an informed and rational person to tolerate or respect Islam because Islam is supremely intolerant and denies our rights and dignity in addition to declaring perpetual war against us.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said his country was deeply committed to fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance at home and abroad. Its founding commitment to the principle that all people were created equal was manifested in its own legislation and its work around the world. Among other things, the United States had, in October, presented an action plan during the meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards. [Emphasis added for clarity.]

The bold faced clause is composed of three code phrases for 'Islamophobia'. The preliminary meeting to prepare for the Durban II Racism Conference redefined racism to include criticism of Islam.

Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities; [Emphasis added for clarity, spelling original.]

Obamanation is "deeply committed to fighting" criticism of Islam. Their whining about freedom of expression is a smoke screen to cover their actual intent: to silence all criticism of Islam and the regime's Socialist agenda.

He said the United States had been unable to support the Durban Review Conference because it supported the 2001 World Conference, in toto. The United States was deeply concerned about hateful speech, but did not agree that the best way to combat such speech was by its prohibition. Rather, the United States believed an effective approach was based on three key elements, including robust legal protections against hate crimes, outreach to religious groups and vigorous defence of freedom of expression. It regretted having to vote “no” on this text and looked forward to working together with the international community. It remained deeply committed to ongoing, thoughtful dialogue on combating racism and racial discrimination. [Emphasis added for clarity, spelling original.]

"Hateful speech" is code for any negative expression about Islam, including Fitna: and the Danish Cartoons. Notice that the regime is concerned about the outcome: silencing all criticism, they seek an "effective approach", a method that will result in silence.

"Hate crimes": if any expression should be criminalized, that is the one. Assaulting, killing or harassing anyone is a crime, regardless of the victim's identity, religion, gender, etc. There is no group of persons more deserving of protection than any other.

"Outreach to religious groups" is code for pandering to Islam, submitting to its outrageous demands. Islam's most outrageous demand is that we submit and become Muslims. We might as well be bitten by Dracula and become vampires. Islamic law forbids any and all negative expression about Allah, Moe, the Qur'an & the laws they issued. If you doubt this, open Reliance of the Traveller to O8.7 and read the list of acts which entail leaving Islam, the penalty for which is death (O8.2). For the law's applicability to non-Muslims, see O11.10(5).

Far from being a saintly Prophet, Moe was a pedophile who married the six year old daughter of his best friend. He solicited the murder of critics. He was guilty of genocide; preaching and practicing it.

Far from being a "great religion of peace", Islam is a mercenary war cult, contrived for the purpose of enriching and empowering its founder by perpetuating war so that he could accrue the spoils.

Islam's objective in demanding blasphemy laws & censorship is to disarm us in the war of ideas so that, in the words of George Washington, "dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter".

If you are a lover of liberty and the rights ensured by the Bill of Rights, then do your part to preserve them by signing and propagating these petitions. Send their links to everyone you can hope to influence with an exhortation to sign and forward them.

• Free to Believe
• ACLJ
• International Qur'an Petition
  

Sphere: Related Content

View Obsession Now

An important message from the Clarion Fund:

This Year, America has witnessed an increased number of radical extremist incidents. The recent tragedy at Fort Hood is only one of many alarming plots carried out on our soil. The threats are very real.

This Thanksgiving, we commemorate the one year anniversary of the attacks in Mumbai.

We must pause on this day to acknowledge our liberties and recognize those that actively seek to destroy our values. To mark this day, the producers of the award-winning Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West are making the film available for free viewing online.

The free stream campaign will run from Monday November 23 until December 10 at www.radicalislam.org/obsession.

This campaign follows a highly successful free stream of The Third Jihad to mark the anniversary of 9/11. Over 35,000 viewers watched the film over the course of the 2 1/2 week campaign.

Together, these films represent the best educational tools available for informing the public about the true threats of radical Islam.

Clicking the red hot spot band at the bottom of the graphic will open this site, which displays the Obsession video just right of center. They are also offering a combined package of Obsession and The Third Jihad on cd for $19.95.

I saw Obsession on t.v. about two years ago. I was not favorably impressed by the p.c. disclaimer. I do not deny the fact that the video depictions of the 'Arab Street' are accurate. My problem is with adding adjectives to Islam. Standard, off the shelf Islam as Moe preached and practiced it is violent and aggressive. Adding adjectives projects a false image of aggression as an exception to a passive standard.

The fact that CAIR loudly objected to distribution of Obsession in newspaper inserts stands as an excellent testimony to its value. I have not seen The Third Jihad and my dialup connection is too slow to watch the trailer. I have the impression that The Third Jihad delves deeper into the non-violent threats of conquest by demographics, litigation, intimidation & deception.

Fitna exposes the scriptural roots of Islamic violence. What the West Needs to Know is a longer but slower paced exposure of the scriptural basis for Jihad, revealed by experts Once you have seen any or all of those videos, you can delve deeper into the Qur'an, hadith & Shari'ah to learn more or turn to these resources for a more condensed version.

• Islamic Terror.chm [30.4KB] A 6 part series from Freedom Ain't Free.
• Jihad.chm [45KB] A 6 part series from Freedom Ain't Free.
• What's Wrong With Islam/Muslims.chm [23KB]. New 10/11/08
• Islamic Supremacism [49KB] A 3 part series from Freedom Ain't Free
• FOMIJihad.chm [163.4KB] The Offensive Jihad thread from the once defunct FOMI anti Islam forum. This thread contains several significant quotes from Fiqh, both ancient and modern.
• EgregiousAyat.chm: 4 tables containing the most egregious Qur'anic verses [Hilali & Khan]; 1 table containing the most egregious sayings. & the most important segment of Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Ch. 9. 6.723MB Zipped.

.

Sphere: Related Content

Petition of Ignorance

sMuslim Thought Re-published Dr. Hasan Yahya's "Petition of Ignorance: Banning of Islam" dated 02/18/09.

Dr. Yahya's critique derisively focuses on form, but his original post was mis formated, and several cross posts which I have seen, including the present case, copy that mis format, making them difficult to read. To make matters worse, the article has no indentations or double spacing, it is one large block of text. These brilliant, wise, all knowing scholars don't know how to use html or make their writing readable.

The article criticized the Ban Islam Petition, which has, at the time of this writing, 889 signatures. Since the petition does not supply evidence to support the charges it makes, its appeal is to people who are already familiar with the evil doctrines and practices of Islam.

I have extracted selected statements from Dr.Yahya's article, placing them in the outer level of an unordered list, with my own comments and evidence in deeper levels of the list. .

• [H]e brings the honorable Prophet of Islam, which Bernard Shaw, the Irish philosopher described as the top of 100 historical personalities in history, found on earth as a great leader.
• Was Moe honorable?
• He demanded and received his best friend's six year old daughter as his bride, consummating the marriage three years later.
• He directed his companions to murder a critic.
• He sent extortion letters, following up with his army.
• For more in depth analysis of Shaw's view of Islam, refer to Being an Unforgivably Protracted Debunking of George Bernard Shaw’s Views of Islam
• The petition wanted to bring Muhammad (SAAS) the Prophet of Islam like Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, and Hitler for the Holocoust, and the Butcher of Bosnian Muslims of Checkoslovakia. Which I believe is a completely ignorant and unfounded claim.[...]
• Moe died in 632, he is beyond the reach of the World Court. His 'crimes' were cited in the petition because they are sunna, exemplary acts to be emulated by Muslims in all places, at all times. It is Islam, not Moe in the dock, Dr.Yahya resorts to reductio ad absurdum, suggesting that petitions against David and Solomon would be parallels to the petition against Islam. He ignores the fact that Judaism & Christianity underwent reformations while Islam remains and will always remain fixated in the 7^th century.
• In this petition there is comment number: 16, which shows Sir Winston Churchill stated in 1899, that Muslims utilize cruel rules and practices early in his life when he was ignorant in politics and of Islam as a great religion. By generalizing his view for all Muslims. [...]
• Churchill served as a British Army officer & war correspondent in Somalia & India where he had ample opportunity for exposure to Islam.
  
• Not withstanding the incomplete sentence, Churchill wrote about Islam, not Muslims. The cited comment does not appear at the specified location in the petition signatures, but may be seen in a blog comment.
• Then you have comment number: 184, for William S. Arnott, Ph.D who strongly encourages such petitions.
  My comment: He has a Ph.D, to say the man is an authority, in fact the carrier of this Ph.D wrote: “Their [the Muslims] deterministic religion is not for the freedom of anyone but is for control of everyone.” I think the use of “anyone,” and “everyone” over generalizes in a situation when specificality is needed rendering his opinion out of the scientific circle by any quantitative or qualitative measurement.
• With a little research, I discovered that Dr. Arnott is a retired psychologist, with degrees appropriate to his occupation. His critic has degrees in Educational Psychology & Sociology. How does Dr. Yahya have any more credibility than Dr. Arnott?
• In support of this position the petitioner cites comments from a range of contributors listed by numbers as follows: 16, 184, 536, 518, 82, 653, 655, 654, and 659. Comment number 536, which he breached as an innocent adolescent shool boy that “the muslims are a victim of islam. make no mistake about that.” And calls to rescue “the helpless victims of islam” and help them to be “a free people” He then proceeds to call on Saudi Arabia to change its ways. This stikes me as somewhat odd. Someone as learned as the petioner would claim to be would undoubtly understand that Saudi Arabia is a small portion of the Muslim world, which includes over 1.5 Billion followers. Its population according to almanac 2007, was 27 million. That is less than 2% of the overall Muslim population worldwide. Thanks for the advice, I am sure Saudi Arabia appreciates it.
• The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contains the focal point of Islam: the Kaaba, in the Grand Mosque in Mecca. The K.S.A. finances the spread of fundamentalist Islam all over the globe.
• Comment 518, the comment is written in French. Unfortunately, I do not speak French. I did, however, recognize some catalystic words. Words such as; Islam, Cathiliques, genocide, massacre, religions, Bouddiste, hindu, religion impose, and psychologiques, and sects, among others. My ethical resolve does not allow me to comment on something that I do not fully understand. I only wish the petitioner had such ethical standards.
• Without reading the comment, Dr. Yahya concludes that the commenter has low ethical standards, writing about a subject he does not comprehend. Dr. Yahya's hypocrisy is obvious.
• L'Islam appelle à l'esclavage des musulmanes envers les musulmans, des Juifs et des Catholiques. Cette religion appelle au génocide par le massacre en masse des athés et des autres religions qui ne sont pas "du livre" (bouddiste, hindou, etc). cette religion impose une loi (la charia) qui est épouvantable pour l'humanité (ex la lapidation des femmes, l'esclavage sexuel des non musulmanes, etc). Cette religion utilise des outils de manipulations psychologiques que l'on retrouve dans les sectes.
• Google Translation:
• Islam calls for the enslavement of Muslims against Muslims, Jews and Catholics. This religion calls for genocide by the mass slaughter of atheists and other religions are not "book" (Buddhists, Hindu, etc.). that religion imposes a law (Sharia), which is terrible for humanity (eg stoning of women, sexual slavery of non-Muslim, etc.). This religion uses psychological manipulation tools found in sects.
• Upon examination of the translated comment, I find therein nothing contrary to the truth; it is an accurate description of Islam.
• Comment 655. a comment from someone; s/he says: “The use of religion to torture, kill, malign, coerce and condone maltreatment of any living creature is heinous.” I agree so far. But on this statement I disagree. s/he said: “Islam does all of these things.” According to whom? This is your basic stereotypical mentality and wreaks of ignorance. Many of the comments are like this, one persons account or opinion but completely unsubstantiated and lacking in real value in understanding.
• The answer to the provocative question is contained in the Qur'an. Read it all and reflect upon it. Moe created Islam for his personal emolument & empowerment through the professional practice of piracy. This fact is documented in Islam's Mercenary Mission. For real understanding of the Qur'an, turn to the writings of a qadi, who spent his entire adult life learning, teaching & applying Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & exegeses. The proof is in these tafsir by Ibn Kathir.
• The Command for Endurance when the Enemy Engaging
• The Command for Jihad against the Disbelievers and the Hypocrites
• The Command to fight Those Who fight Muslims and killing Them wherever They are found
• The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom
• The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas
• The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
• The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites
• Comment 654. says:”In the interest of world peace ban islam.” S/he agrees on false claim or petition to ban Islam. I wonder to myself as I am reading this comment: what level of bigotry and racist view are these? I am appalled as a sociologist to see such free acceptance of illogical statements in a petition that is to be taken seriously. This comment is written by a blind follower. You could say anything and the “yes, count me in” mentality kicks in. I could probably go around and gets quotes from random people saying that they hate football. That doesn’t mean I will go forward with a petition to ban football.
• Islam is permanent war. 8:39 commands Muslims to make war on pagans until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. 9:29 commands Muslims to make war on Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subjugated & extorted. Those commands are confirmed by Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 & other hadith and codified in Reliance of the Traveler O9.8 & 9.9. Islamic law requires [O9.1] that a minimum of one military attack be mounted against kuffar in every year. Al-Shafi'i made the matter crystal clear.
• "The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."
• Finally, the sponsor of the petition, his name is Lorenzo Bouchard, and his email, is labouchard@shaw.ca
  A final comment is what about the other numbers of comments which may be redicule the petition or call for peace and harmony in America in logical sense From the 659 or may be more comments? Just a question. Americans are not fools to accept such a racist and discriminative petition. Forty years ago, blacks compared with whites were less intillegent and some racist scientist like the one with Ph.D, the petitioner brought, claimed that in the 1980s, Today, Obama proved that blacks are not less than any person on earth if they have the chance and opportunity. For this I proudly say, long live America. And I feel sorry for this ill-guided petition to incite hatred in a healthy society like the USA.
• What is the relevance of the name and contact information of the author of the petition? Let the petition stand or fall on its intrinsic merit.
• Dr. Yahya arbitrarily dismissis comments in support of the petition. Why should we blindly accept criticism of it?
• The petition is not racist; Islam is a war cult, not a race. Islam is not limited to Arabia, Arabs conquered North Africa, nearly half of Asia and much of Southern & Eastern Europe. It has enslaved people of several races. Rejecting a pseudo religion which commands its votaries to conquer the world, performing acts of terrorism & genocide in the process is not evil, it is a wise decision based on verifiable facts and sound judgment.

A newer petition, urges the World Court to grant injunctive relief against Islam.It presents evidence of Islam's static violation of international human rights conventions. It is carefully formatted and its evidence is linked to source documents for easy verification & contextual exploration. The International Qur'an Petition, published August 18, has 116 signatures at present.

Muslims, seeking to impose their blasphemy laws onto the entire world, assert that all criticism of islam is racism and hate speech, intended to incite violence against Muslims. Those assertions are intended to shut off debate, precluding all questioning of Islam's bona fides. That is the purpose of the Defamation of Religions resolution being debated by the Third Committee and a proposal to add a protocol to ICERD, being written by the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards.

The resolution and the protocol seek to use international human rights law against us, rendering us defenseless in the ideological war which Islam is waging against our liberties. The International Qur'an Petition is our way of turning the tables on Islam, using their tactic against them. Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence contravenes ICERD, ICCPR & CPPCG. The petition offers proof of that fact. If the international human rights covenants are to have any meaning and effect, Islam must be proscribed by law.

I am asking you to read the International Qur'an Petition and evaluate the evidence for yourself. If you agree that Islam must be proscribed, sign the petition and send it to everyone you can hope to influence with an exhortation to sign and forward it. You can copy the petition's text and paste it into an email or download it in the form of a 14kb pdf file for use as an email attachment.

Proscribe Islam Petition Rough Draft is a71kb pdf file containing the full quotes of the the evidence of Islam's guilt. .Islam vs Human Rights 64kb chm file compiled from 7 blog posts exposing Islam's static violations of ICCPR.

The fact, revealed by the codified oral traditions of Moe's companions, is that Islam's mission is mercenary, its method is martial and its founder was a lecher, pedophile and suborner of murder. That is truth, not hate speech. That is condemnation of Islam, not an exhortation to assault or murder Muslims.

The Danish Cartoons depict Moe as a terrorist. They exaggerate; Moe never possessed a bomb because he died before the invention of explosives. But he was, by his own admission, a terrorist. The cartoons do not suggest attacks against Muslims. The violence was spawned by the preaching of radical clerics, not by the cartoons. Fitna, the short video documentary by Geert Wilders, illustrates that fact most effectively. It shows Allah's commands and the cleric's raving along with the resultant rioting. Fitna is neither hate speech nor incitement, it is an expose of Islam's hate speech and incitement to violence.

Sphere: Related Content