Geert Wilders on Trial: Prosecutors Dump Case So What?

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.

• http://www.om.nl/publish/pages/123465/summarypublicprosecutorclosingspeechgwilders_part1.pdf
• http://www.om.nl/publish/pages/123638/summarypublicprosecutorclosingspeechgwilders_part2.pdf

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 and incite hatred, may indeed be punishable. Political statements which incite hatred constitute a threat to peace in society and political stability in democratic states. Politicians must be very careful, since their goal is to accede to power. It is essential that politicians avoid using words that could propagate intolerance.

    Another prime tidbit emerges from the legalese.

The Supreme Court does not consider the statement ‘stop the tumor called Islam” to be punishable since the statement does not unequivocally refer to a group of people because of their religion.

    Take careful note of the detail elucidated in the succeeding paragraph.

It is quite conceivable that people who feel very connected to their religion, feel that they (too) are being discriminated against when their religion is being criticized. However, from a legal perspective there is a strict distinction between a statement that refers to a religion and a statement that relates to people who adhere to that religion. Criticizing the opinions or the behavior of those who belong to the group, particularly including behavior directly related to or directly emanating from the religion, is not punishable. Criticizing a religion is not punishable, even if it is in very coarse language. Any hurt feelings may not be considered in the legal assessment of the element “insulting about a group of people”

    How will you unscramble this egg?

Only impairing the self-respect or discrediting the group because it belongs to a specific race, has a specific religion or philosophy of life, is punishable. 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 religious conviction or in the context of an artistic expression, it can dispel the insulting nature of the statement. This does not necessarily mean that the statement is in practice experienced as less serious; this concerns the juristic construction as applied by the Supreme Court. We only focus on the 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 was considered to be very important. Accordingly, no obstacles under criminal law were imposed on criticizing views, even if such criticism were offensive. Criticism of the deepest convictions among religious people and of religion itself and the institutes and organisations based on religion is permitted, and the same holds true for Section 137d Sr. Criticism is punishable, however, if it unmistakably 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, ‘instigating hatred or discrimination’ is regarded as an intentional offence. The intent requirement is contained in the word ‘instigate’.
Section 137d Sr is a formal offence. This means that the possible consequence that may or may not ensue from the offence, or the likelihood of that consequence, does not determine whether the description of the offence has been fulfilled. The intent of the suspect need not concern a specific consequence 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 to Burn A Qur'an Day: Al-Taqiyya & Kitman

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.

What will Jesus do?

• fight the people for the cause of Islam
  • Have you read 8:39, 9:29 & Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387?  Islam molds Jesus in the likeness of Moe, as a warlord.  
• break the cross
  • 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.

Men are superior to women, who must obey their husbands.  Husbands are allowed to beat their wives. Lightly was added by the translators, it is not in the Arabic.  You won't find beat there, either. Try this page, even though it is fine print. The literal translation says scourge.

    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.]

The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land

...`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways....

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.

• Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)
• One-fifth of Booty to the Cause of Allah (Khumus)
• Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi)

Geert Wilders Trial: Truth is No Defense

Google published an article from Canada Free Press about recent developments in the trial of Geert Wilders.  One prosecutorial qoute  stands out like sore thumb and must be addressed.  Thanks and a tip of the hat to Jihad Watch.

"You can expect a politician to be aware of the impact of his words and in any case, the legal limit may not be crossed, no matter how important it may be to address supposed problems and to contribute to matters of general interest,"   Prosecutor Birgit van Roessel [Emphasis added.]

    The relevant statutory provisions are revealed in the summons.  Expressions which "insult a group of people"  and/or " incites hatred or discrimination" against them are arbitrarily prohibited.  No defenses are allowed.  

    If Muslims, motivated by the normative doctrines of Islam enshrined in the Qur'an and exemplified by Muhammad's Sunnah, murder film makers, assault homosexuals, threaten members of parliament and pose an existential threat to the cultural identity and continuance of a free & democratic Netherlands, public disclosure of the facts is prohibited and can not be excused on grounds of necessity.  

    Besides mandating national suicide, the prosecutor has a severe cognitive dissonance problem. She moved for dismissal of charges of insulting Muslims because the insult was to Islamic ideology, not to Muslims.  If the insult was to Islam, then the incitement &  discrimination must also be against Islam,  not Muslims.  All of the charges should be dropped, they should never have been filed.  

Geert Wilders on Trial: Testimony of Wafa Sultan

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Vlad Tepes for  embedding these informative videos.  In these two videos, with a total run time of 19:14, we hear the  chairman of the judicial panel reading from the testimony of expert witness Wafa Sultan.  

    I doubt that the judge was comfortable reading that content, but he made an obvious effort to avoid displaying his disgust. His relief is obvious when he finishes reading the testimony.  The defendant and his lawyer were obviously struggling to maintain decorum.  A few  audience members in the gallery were not so successful in maintaining  a straight face.  A good view of the prosecution side might have been priceless.  

    Unfortunately, the dry reading of her testimony lacks the passion with which Sultan drove her points home in an interview the day before her testimony.
[Wafa Sultan Interview  ]

    Though lacking the chapter & verse specificity of  previous testimony, Sultan confirms it  plus Fitna and Wilders' statements.  She illustrated her testimony with examples from her own  experience in her early life in Syria.

    If truth were a defense against the charges  on which Wilders is being tried, Sultan's testimony would be devastating to the prosecution's case. Had her testimony been  public and properly covered by the news media, it would be devastating to Islam.  

Testimony of Wafa Sultan Part 1 12:01

Part 2  7:13

Ineffable Questions for the Leaders of Islam

One of my Google Alerts turned up an article  at News Blaze purportedly written by two Australian Muslims.  Their names arouse some suspicion: Salem Yalekum and Ashraef Ahmed.  The questions which they propound tend to arouse further doubts.  

At the bottom line, the authors seem to confirm my suspicions in one sentence, and pull back from the precipice in the next. [Emphasis added.]

Reform Islam, protect the faith. Muslim people are now questioning their own faith and want clarification. We want assimilation we do not want to stick out like a sore thumb. We have had enough of the inaction.

Their use of the third person in the first sentence inspires doubt.  Reversion to the first person in the next raises the question: is it style, or is it content.

    There is another crucial tip off: did they quote from an appendix to Craig Winn's The Prophet of Doom.

• "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
• "Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other."

Islam Awakened has the largest collection of parallel translations known to me; none of them  exactly matched the quote. I tried their quote of 8:36- with the same frustrating results. Those quotes are all over the web, without attribution to the translator.  The meaning transmitted can be justified, but  it appears that someone has selected bits and pieces from several translations and melded them together in the style of Craig Winn.  

    Are the authors reform minded Muslims or agent provocateurs?  I do not have sufficient evidence, though I lean to the latter conclusion.  The time has come to consider some of their questions.

    The fifteen questions in this enumerated list, followed by a very sharp supernumerary question  cause me to conclude that the authors are either Kaffirs  poking Muslims with a sharp stick or Muslims in name only, taking a leap of apostasy.  

1. Why is the Islamic community allowing terrorists to hijack their religion to justify their hideous evil attacks on western countries?

2. What are the true "moderate Muslims" doing to prevent this abuse of our religion by their radical brothers and sisters in Islam?

3. When the Muslim community do nothing except complain about the reaction of the west to the radical elements in Islam, what do we expect them to do?

4. Why are we are doing nothing about them?

5. Isn't it the responsibility of every moderate Muslim to claim ownership of Islam, and openly denounce any Muslim using the Koran to justify their evil acts?

6. Do you agree that when the civilized Islamic community takes control of Islam, people might view us in a different light and we might regain our dignity?

7. Do the Islamic nations agree it should NOT be up to the western nations to clean up the mess left behind by radical Islamists?

8. Do Muslims living in the west totally accept that as a direct result of the inaction of the Islamic community, the west has no option but to protect themselves?

9. Why have Islamic communities failed to protect our religion?

10. Do the true Muslims feel ashamed and embarrassed by the 100,000's of YouTube videos and internet sites where our religious leaders are promoting absolute vile barbaric and evil doctrines in the name of Islam?

11. What are our Islamic leaders doing to protect the name of Islam from these radicals?

12. Why do the Islamic leaders fail to acknowledge these people are the ones totally damaging the name of Islam and turning the west against Islam?

13. What is the Muslim community doing about them or going to do about them and when?

14. When is Islam going to accept responsibility for the evil actions of radical Muslims acting in the name of ALLAH?

15. What does the Koran tell us Muslims about dealing with any Muslim perverting the word of the Koran? 

More so, we ask what Islamic scholars are going to do about the suras in the Koran that incite violence, call for the killing of Jews and Christians.

 

1. They ain't.  Islam was contrived for the purpose of rationalizing, justifying and perpetuating attacks because its founder derived his  wealth and income from razia, ghazwat & extortion. Refer to Islam's Mercenary Mission  for the details. Islam has not been hijacked, it is violent by design.  
2. Passive Muslims do nothing to resist believers because they are pacifists. It is the believers who are armed & dangerous. They have the will  to kill as well as the capacity.  Those pacifist Muslims who abjure jihad  got a label from Moe: hypocrites. See 4:88-89. 
3. What is your alternative?  Will you debate the fine points of fard al-kifaya with the salafists?  On what scriptural basis will you defeat them in debate? Consider what Allah said about Jihad. Consider what Moe said and did about it. How can you argue  against Allah and his Messenger?
4. Because there is nothing you can do  or will do. You are not armed and you lack the initiative to take action. You have neither the will nor the means to remove the salafists from the face of the earth. 
5. How can you condemn  salafists for using the Qur'an for its intended purpose?  The Qur'an was revealed for the purpose of incentivising and perpetuating warfare. 
6. There is no civilized community in Islam. Civilization and Islam are polar opposites.  You do not take control of Islam, it took control of you.  Are you aware of the fact that Islam's loss of dignity is a function of abandoning jihad?  Read the translator's foot note to 2:190, which defines jihad. The sad fact is confirmed in  Sunan Abu Dawud 23.3455. 
7. No, they don't agree that they should "clean up the mess" of the salafists. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. 
8. No, they don't agree that we have no option but self-defense.  The Islamic position is that kuffar have no right to defend themselves and must submit to Islam.
9. Protect it from what / whom?  From the salafists?  Islam is all about salafism!  Did you read the Qur'an?  It tells you to obey Allah and his Messenger. What did they command you to do?  
10. No, they are not ashamed, they are proud of Islam. 
11. Spewing al-taqiyya to deceive the kuffars, telling us that Islam is "the religion of peace".
12. Because they bought into the promises of Allah, that  it will give you victory and you will dominate the world. 
13. You  will continue to obey them and honor them. 
14. On the 33^rd day of the month of Never.
15. It tells you to wage war against the hypocrites and gather them into Hell along with the kuffar. 

    In  the presence of the western media, they will deny those surahs, claiming that they do not exist.  In the Mosque, absent kuffar, they will continue to preach and teach those violent verses and exhort their congregants to join the jihad.

    The Surahs which command  aggressive conquest, particularly Al-Anfal & At-Taubah, are a permanent part of the Qur'an. They are imperatives which  can not be edited, deleted, abrogated, re-interpreted or ignored.  Allah said:   [Emphasis added.]

• 3:78. And verily, among them is a party who distort the Book with their tongues (as they read), so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book, and they say: "This is from Allâh," but it is not from Allâh; and they speak a lie against Allâh while they know it. 
• 6:115. And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All­Hearer, the All­Knower.
• 6:93. And who can be more unjust than he who invents a lie against Allâh, or says: "I have received inspiration," whereas he is not inspired in anything; and who says, "I will reveal the like of what Allâh has revealed." And if you could but see when the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers, etc.) are in the agonies of death, while the angels are stretching forth their hands (saying): "Deliver your souls! This day you shall be recompensed with the torment of degradation because of what you used to utter against Allâh other than the truth. And you used to reject His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) with disrespect! " 
• 10:64. For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present world (i.e. righteous dream seen by the person himself or shown to others), and in the Hereafter. No change can there be in the Words of Allâh, this is indeed the supreme success. 
• 18:27. And recite what has been revealed to you (O Muhammad ) of the Book (the Qur'ân) of your Lord (i.e. recite it, understand and follow its teachings and act on its orders and preach it to men). None can change His Words, and none will you find as a refuge other than Him.
• 30:30. So set you (O Muhammad ) your face towards the religion of pure Islâmic Monotheism Hanifa (worship none but Allâh Alone) Allâh's Fitrah (i.e. Allâh's Islâmic Monotheism), with which He has created mankind. No change let there be in Khalq­illâk (i.e. the Religion of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism), that is the straight religion, but most of men know not. [Tafsir At­Tabarî, Vol 21, Page 41] 

    Moe said: [Emphasis added.]

•  

  Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 174:

  Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd:

  I heard the Prophet saying, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount (Kauthar), and whoever will come to it, will drink from it, and whoever will drink from it, will never become thirsty after that. There will come to me some people whom I know and they know me, and then a barrier will be set up between me and them." Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri added that the Prophet further said: "I will say those people are from me. It will be said, 'You do not know what changes and new things they did after you.' Then I will say, 'Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me! "

    When you deny any verse of the Qur'an, you sign your death warrant.  Reliance of the Traveller o8.7 lists twenty acts & attitudes that entail apostasy.  This is one of them:

• -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

Item 7 is on  page  615.  Scroll up to 613 to read 08.1 & 9.2 to confirm the penalty.  

    A Muslim who has moral reservations about conquest, terrorism & genocide has no recourse but apostasy because reform is impossible.   You can't improve perfection. 

Tide May Turn in Wilders Trial

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Gates of Vienna for  leading me to this nifty resource.  Those of  us who only know English won't get much out of the  dialog from the  reading of the expert testimony.  

    From the  transcript, it is clear that Prof. Jansen  carefully laid out  evidence from Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence.  He delved into the  science of abrogation, which probably had the audience bored stiff.  

    The video clip, with a run time of 14:29 may bore you to tears but  when the camera  leaves the bench and scans the defense and prosecution tables, we can observe facial expressions and body language.  

    At 4:35, it is clear that Jansen  is having difficulty hearing the reading of his testimony.

    At 6:21 we get our first good look at the prosecution table and the spectators behind them.  

    At 9:06, we get another good look at the prosecution table. Note the body language and expressions. Those are not happy campers.  They are trying not to show it, but they have a weak hand and they know it.  The cards of evidence are turning against their game.   

    At 11:14, it becomes clear that the defense attorney is starting to lose his composure, poker face fatigue must be setting in.  At 11:39 he turns away from the camera.

    Everybody  seems tired  bored, or frustrated. Observe the body language as they  go on break about 13:21.  The prosecution team is last to leave, and not stepping lively.

    Another  post from Gates of Vienna has the first clue.  The complainants are concerned that the prosecution undercharged Wilders.  They want the charge elevated to inciting violence, citing an alleged quote from  2007: “a struggle going on and we must defend ourselves.”  Yeah, right, that is incitement to violence.  The absurdity of the accusation  accentuates the arrogance of Islam.  Jihad is waged with the tongue, pen, heart and purse as well as the sword.  Likewise defense.  The prosecutor turned them down.