 In twenty years of working as a cop in the Colorado Criminal Justice System, I never heard anything from a judge like what the Amsterdam Chief Judge said yesterday at the opening of Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders’ criminal prosecution. Wilders, who is on trial for producing his movie “Fitna” and for opposing the Islamization of Europe, sat motionless as the litany of charges was read aloud. The Judge addressed Wilders and asked him how he was feeling. I could laugh at this sadistic inanity, but the defendant is on trial for his freedom. All that is missing from this proceeding is the thumbscrew or the rack. And like Galileo (pictured above during trial), who faced his Inquisitors in 1633, Wilders is playing against a stacked deck. From Radio Netherlands Worldwide comes this report from John Tyler: “Geert Wilders sat expressionless next to his lawyers at the defendant’s table while the public prosecutor read out the charges, including incitement toward hatred of Muslims, incitement toward hatred of Moroccans, and discrimination against Moroccans and non-western immigrants… …The panel of three judges said it was unnecessary, but did instruct the prosecutor to read out Mr Wilders’ statements on which the case is based. After the statements had been read, the senior judge had the following exchange with the defendant (translated): Judge: “Mr Wilders, I can see that you are listening very intently, but what are you feeling right now? I cannot sense any emotion in you whatsoever.”
Wilders: “Indeed, I have been listening intently, but some things were missing. Particularly the quotes from Fitna [his anti-Islam video, ed.], I was trying to reconstruct it, to see if they were right. Some were, some weren’t.”…” Wilders claims the quotes attributed to him in the Charges are not accurate – as if that should matter to the prosecution and to this Court. Perhaps the Judge expected Wilders to break down in tears and confess his guilt, like some soppy Perry Mason TV episode from the 1960s. I don’t know. I do know that this entire proceeding has taken on a medieval Inquisition-like countenance.
But this time it is the 21st Century Dutch Government, intimidated by and acting as a de facto agent of the World of Islam, that is persecuting one of its own elected public officials in a scene that is a throw-back to the Middle Ages. It is a sham. It is a shame on all the governments of Europe that have chosen to surrender to Sharia and silence their patriots rather than to resist Islamization. And if you think this cannot come to The United States, you had better think again. NewsReal Blog 
 The depths of treachery, mind-numbing legal prejudice and undisguised prosecutorial malice in the upcoming trial of Parliamentarian Geert Wilders within Amsterdam’s Criminal Court are a truly alarming indication of how deeply Islam has sunken its tentacles into the Dutch government. Wilders goes to trial on January 20 for numerous accusations that are crafted to kill Free Political Discourse.
A December 4, 2009 indictment was handed down after Muslims voiced objections to Wilders’ movie “Fitna”, which exposes bellicose Koranic verses, acts of Islamic violence and the in-progress Islamization of Europe. The fix is in, ladies and gents. Members of the Press were summarily barred from a January 13 pre-trial hearing, prosecutor Paul Vellerman said that the trial will not occur in a “super-secured” Courtroom, and more charges were added, to wit: Racism Against Muslims and Moroccans.
The tentacles of Islam and PC have a strangle-hold. There will be no fair trial. Besides facing two years in prison if convicted, Wilders’ life will be at risk. The trial will be held in a Courtroom that is not equipped to afford adequate security, making him more accessible to jihad assassins. Diana West’s take is in her blog here. Danish Free Press’ Arthur Legger’s coverage is here: “Any one who still claims that the trial against Geert Wilders MP, leader of the Party for Freedom (9 seats in Parliament and 27 in the polls), which starts on the 20th of January, is not a political process: get a grip. Accused by the Dutch ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ exactly a year ago for insulting Islam, comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf and delivering hate speeches, the coming trial against Wilders suddenly got a Kafkaesque and potentially murderous twist… … “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”… This is incredible. It does not matter to the prosecutor that Wilders might be telling the truth.
It is illegal to speak the truth. Please, awaken me from the nightmare and tell me that this cannot be happening in a “free” nation in the 21st Century. “…(the indictment) which Wilders received on the 4th of December and sums up in verbatim all of his Islam and Koran critique in interviews and Fitna, was amended with new accusations of racism against muslims (sic) and Moroccans… Paul Vellerman, the public prosecutor of the Amsterdam Court decided that the Wilders trial had to be regarded as “an ordinary trial open for public and with a normal procedure, which doesn’t deserve the Department of Justice’s highly secured bunker…” Really? Parliamentarian Pim Fortuyn and film maker Theo van Gogh, outspoken Dutch opponents of Islamic doctrine and Islamization, were both murdered on public streets, in the day time, in plain view of passers-by. A Muslim killed van Gogh and a pro-Muslim-immigrationist dispatched Fortuyn. Vellerman, knowing full-well Wilders’ status as a marked target of Islam, refuses to give him the protection of a properly secured Courtroom during trial. This is dastardly. It is villainy. A squid kills by attaching its tentacles and drawing the victim toward its beak-like mouth, where it is torn apart and eaten. We are now witnessing no less than the devouring by prosecution of an unarmed and innocent prey in The Netherlands’ Court. NewsReal Blog
 Geert Wilders, the far-right MP who likens the Koran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, goes on trial today in a politically charged test of the limits of tolerance and free speech in the Netherlands. Mr Wilders, 46, leader of the Freedom Party, is charged with incitement and discrimination against Muslims over his outspoken comments attacking Islam and for his film, Fitna, which juxtaposed images of 9/11 and beheadings with verses of the Koran.
He has called the Koran “a fascist book” and described Islamic culture as retarded. Mr Wilders, who has made no secret of his ambition to become Prime Minister, has called his indictment a political trial but the Amsterdam Court of Appeal decided that it was in the public interest to prosecute him because his comments have been “so insulting to Muslims”. “I am being prosecuted for my political convictions,” Mr Wilders said this week. The maverick politician was banned from Britain last February on the grounds that he would “threaten community harmony and therefore public security” but travelled to London in October when the restriction was dropped. He faces up to two years in prison if convicted but his opponents fear that, win or lose, his Freedom Party will receive a boost in next year’s election where it is expected to challenge the ruling Christian Democrats for the largest party vote. In last summer’s European Parliament elections Mr Wilders’s party took 17 per cent of the vote, second to the CDA of Jan Peter Balkenende, the Prime Minister, on 19.9 per cent. Mr Wilders has received numerous death threats for his campaign against the “Islamisation of our societies” views but has built a large following by exploiting a backlash against relaxed Dutch immigration policies, vowing to close Holland’s borders if he comes to power. “My supporters say, ‘At last there is someone who dares to say what millions of people think’. That is what I do.” Today’s hearing in Amsterdam district court is a formal opening session to determine who will be called as witnesses and whether they will all be heard in public. A spokeswoman for the Public Prosecution Office said that the demand for the case came from a variety of individuals and organisations which complained about comments made by Mr Wilders. “The Court of Appeal determined that statements equating Islam to Nazism were a punishable insult to Islamic worshippers and therefore constituted ground for criminal prosecution,” she said. In its judgment ordering the prosecution of Mr Wilders the Court of Appeal stated: “The court considers this so insulting for Muslims that it is in the public interest to prosecute Wilders.
By attacking the symbols of the Muslim religion, he also insulted Muslim believers. In a democratic system, hate speech is considered to be so serious that it is in the general interest to draw a clear line.” Times Online
 While many of us here at Women Against Shariah do not believe in banning books, the Netherlands is hypocritical for choosing to ban some violent and hateful texts, such as Hitler's "Mein Kampf," and permitting other texts. That is exactly what Wilders has pointed out-- the hypocrisy.Meanwhile hate-mongers like Anjem Choudary are free to incite hatred in the UK and Europe. Whether or not you agree with Wilder's assessment that Islam is a problematic religion which advocates violence (which it does and is a reason to support reformers), he should have every right to free speech as he does not advocate for harming Muslim people. From Dutch News: Wilders faces five counts of religious insult and anti-Muslim incitement.
News agency AFP says Wilders is charged with insulting Muslims by describing Islam as a fascist religion and calling for the banning of the Koran, which he likens to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
The MPs is also accused of inciting hatred and discrimination for stating Moroccan youths were violent, for calling for Holland's borders to be closed to all non-western immigrants and urging an end to 'the Islamic invasion'.
AFP says he faces up to one year in jail if convicted.
The case against Wilders is due to start next Wednesday, when the legal framework and timetable will be set out. The main process will begin later in the year.
 Sudan is accusing the upcoming Danish movie by Susanne Bier of being in the same class as the Muhammmed cartoons. Sudan's government are upset at the Danish movie Civilization ("Hævnen", literally 'the revenge'), which director Susanne Bier is shooting in Kenya and Denmark. The movie is an extension of the anti-Islam Dutch movie "Fitna" and the Danish Muhammed cartoons, says the Sudanese foreign ministry.
Susanne Bier's movie is based on the war in Sudan's Darfur region, and follows the trail from refugee camps in Sudan to life in a town in South Funen.
Sudan's foreign ministry says in a press release that the people responsible for "Civilization" intend to "represent nonexistent conditions in Darfur" and that the movie represents a "new step of the hostile forces who work to prolong the war in Darfur."
The spokesperson for Sudan's foreign ministry, Muawiya Osman Khalid, says that the 'production of this racist movie should be seen as a new extension of the notorious 'Fitna' movie and the cartoons which insult the prophet Muhammed," the official Sudanese news agency Suna reported Tuesday.
Khalid says that the Danish film crew shot in the Kukobi refugee camp in Kenya, where, according to Khalid, the crew duped the refugees to get them to play war victims from Darfur for a price of 2000-5000 Kenyan Shillings.
The spokesperson for the Sudanese foreign ministry says that they residents of the Kukobi camp launched a campaign against the movie.
Actors Trine Dyrholm, Ulrich Thomsen and Swedish Mikael Persbrandt appear in the film. The Danish Movie Institute gave the movie 7 million kroner, and it is expected in movie theaters this August.
Source: Fyens Stiftstidende (Danish)
With thanks to Islam in Europe
 Free speech goes on trial in the Netherlands on January 20, when Dutch politician Geert Wilders appears before the Amsterdam District Court on charges of having “intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion,” as well as having incited to hatred and discrimination. What did Wilders do to warrant such charges? He told the truth about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, and their roots in Islamic texts and teachings, in his film Fitna and elsewhere.
But nowadays truth-telling is at such a premium that those who still dare to engage in it are threatened, harassed and prosecuted. But Wilders is defiant: “On the 20th of January 2010, a political trial will start. I am being prosecuted for my political convictions. The freedom of speech is on the verge of collapsing.
If a politician is not allowed to criticise an ideology anymore, this means that we are lost, and it will lead to the end of our freedom. However I remain combative: I am convinced that I will be acquitted.” The very idea of trying someone for offending someone else is absurd – especially when the offended group is known to traffic in the PC multiculturalist coin of wounded feelings, so as to gain the political power that comes from victim status. That the Amsterdam District Court would aid and abet this absurdity and obvious manipulation unmasks the Wilders trial – even before it starts – as what it really is: an attempt by the nation’s political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics. The one who has the power to decide what is an actionable offensive statement or prosecutable incitement has the power to control the discourse – and that’s what the prosecution of Wilders is all about. If offending someone is a crime, can those who find hate speech laws offensive bring suit against their framers? The action against Wilders is taking place, moreover, against the backdrop of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference’s ongoing efforts at the United Nations to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam — including “defamation of Islam” that goes under the “pretext” of “freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security.” If they succeed in doing this, Europeans and Americans will be rendered mute, and thus defenseless, in the face of the advancing jihad and attempt to impose Sharia on the West — in fact, one of the key elements of the laws for dhimmis, non-Muslims subjugated under Islamic rule, is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. Thus this prosecution in Amsterdam not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance. The stakes are so high in the Wilders case also because the OIC has a new, powerful ally as it moves against the freedom of speech. In October the Obama Administration actually co-sponsored an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations. Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council, the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, calls on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Echoing Obama’s stated determination to combat “negative stereotyping of Islam” in the United States, the resolution also condemns “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups.” This is, of course, an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism — for such reporting, and not actual negative stereotyping or hateful language at all, is always the focus of OIC complaints. Last year the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, issued a warning: “We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed” regarding free speech about Islam and terrorism. And he reported success: “The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.” For the first time, an American President has bowed to the OIC’s demands and taken cognizance of that “responsibility.” More at FPM
 By Kenneth Roberts [Part One] Both Sunnis and Shi’ites believe in the use of sacred violence. The right to coerce the infidels and subdue them was given by Allah to Mohammed as owner of the earth. Theologically, mocking Mohammed’s method of controlling the infidels is blasphemy, for the violent method of Mohammed comes directly from Allah.
Allah’s method trumps human logic, even the Western ideal of free speech that is based on mere human philosophy and mere human reasoning, rather than Allah’s Divine Command.
In mere human philosophy, Mohammed’s fitna-prevention method is built on a fallacy of logic called the Appeal to Force in place of logical argument. But this fallacious argument is the main argument of the Koran. Muslims know that the Koranic argument for violence against the infidels takes up 2/3 of the Koran and they further know that the Koranic argument cannot be wrong, for it comes directly from Allah and Allah is not a liar. Mohammed’s method for eliminating fitna is jihad and all Muslims should freely use Mohammed’s method, since Mohammed is their role model. This is what Muslims did in the Danish cartoon riots.
It is also what motivated Dr. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009. Normally, Muslims will not kill infidels for merely thinking non-Islamic thoughts. After all, who knows what another person is thinking, even one’s own spouse? Sacred violence is authorized when open disagreement with Mohammed is expressed in the public domain, as with a cartoon or an anti-Islamic book. It need not be the guilty person who is punished, so we can never be sure of the physical safety of any infidels, since throughout history, jihads have often included mass slaughters and genocides of men, women and children. Mohammed approved of such indiscriminate killing of unbelievers on occasion, if it was convenient for him. During a night-time sneak attack on a town, Mohammed was asked about his customary method of sparing women and children (so that they could be sources of revenue as slaves). According to the Hadith by Abu Muslim 19:4322 , Mohammed responded, “They are of them.” In other words, the women and children are accomplices in the fitna of the defending males. And besides, it was inconvenient to attack and carry lanterns to check everything that moves in the dark. Here Mohammed authorized wholesale slaughter of an entire community. The justification for this was the political charge of fitna. So no infidel is ever innocent of fitna, a capital crime. Such logic was used by Major Nidal Hasan when he committed a wholesale slaughter http://www.faithfreedom.org/islam/islamic-mind-major-nidal-hasan of 13 unarmed American soldiers: …the American army opposes Mohammed’s method…it is guilty of fitna…and the 13 slaughtered soldiers ‘are of them.’
This made Dr. Hasan a hero to the former mullah of his mosque, because he executed the enemies of Mohammed using deceit and surprise, just like Mohammed did. Mohammed frequently executed unarmed prisoners of war. Dr. Hasan is a rational, pious Muslim. His ideas agree with the official scholarly concensus of normative Islam. Mohammed’s brilliant method of ruthless assassination silences fitna by paralyzing the brain with fear. Mohammed’s method may not be judged by any external standard, because his method is itself the standard. Forget the obvious ethical flexibility or opportunism. Mohammed’s method takes a position above human logic, ethical analysis and philosophical discourse. To analyze Mohammed’s ethical inconsistencies is fitna. Today, Islamic governments are seeking new ways to control fitna beyond their borders. Kafir fitna is temptation or luring that tempts Muslims to question or lose their faith. Kafirs commit fitna every time they disagree with Sharia law in the public domain, when they mock Mohammed’s violent method in cartoons or use reason or logic on the Internet to show Mohammed is wrong. Such politically incorrect utterance keeps the Islamic state from insuring all information supports the unity and power of that State and its jihadist army. Information control is normative Islam and is fully acceptable to all pious Muslims, since it prevents fitna, the ultimate crime. Modern Muslims agree that fitna should be removed from human society through censorship of discourse that disagrees with Islam, even in the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. By removing the right to disagree with Islam at the UN, Muslim governments hope to implement global information control. Politically, this will allow Islamic governments to totally ignore all human rights complaints by claiming Muslims have a unique human right: the right of not hearing any criticism. When governments of the Islamic Conference say they wish to remove utterances that criticizes Islam, they actually mean ‘fitna’…public disagreement with Mohammed. Islamic governments know fitna control is needed before discriminatory Sharia law can be fully implemented and jihad can go ahead. They seek to shut down the freedom of UN diplomats to discuss any human rights aspect of Islam. They cast a veil over Islamic discrimination against women and minorities in view of the radical claim that Muslims have a superior, unique human right which infidels do not possess. More at WesternFront
 By Kenneth Roberts Why do cartoons constitute a capital crime in Islam? Why did writing ‘The Satanic Verses’ bring a death sentence and bounty upon Sir Salman Rushdie? Why does a military psychiatrist fire more than 100 rounds into an unarmed crowd he was trained to heal? Why do Muslims express violent anger concerning differences of religious opinion? The one-word answer to these questions is ‘FITNA‘. Fitna is one of the most important concepts in Islam, but it is a totally alien concept to Western philosophy. The concept of fitna totally abnegates our notions of free expression or logical discourse.
The concept of fitna subjugates all thought to the method of Mohammed. Fitna is spotted by the mullahs who also pick the Islamic response to it. In response to the Danish cartoons, they instructed Muslims to riot. Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the paramount authority in Islam, demanded the closing of Jyllands Posten to prevent further fitna. Muslims studiously avoid the word fitna when talking to infidels. What is fitna then? The definition is surprisingly simple: Fitna is any disagreement with Mohammed. More precisely, Fitna is any islamicly-incorrect thought which is communicated to others in the public domain. This definition fits all the confusing facts and makes sense of all the Islamic dualisms. Fitna is a thought crime. Fitna is a dualistic cocktail of blasphemy and treason. As with almost everything in Islam, fitna is very hard to explain, because it is couched in Islamic dualism. Even Muslims have trouble explaining it, but they can identify it when they see it. And when they see it, they react violently. There are two distinctly different classes of fitna: inter-Islamic fitna and infidel fitna. In relation to the evil infidels, fitna means ‘tempting’, ‘enticing’ or ‘luring’ another to disagree with Mohammed. Fitna comes from an old Arabic word that means removing the dross from pure metal. Pure Islam is held in check by fitna, so it must be purged. In modern Islamic usage, fitna is used to describe ideas that cause controversy, testing, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord, disturbing social peace and order within the Muslim community, …such things as openly disagreeing with the head of state of Egypt or Iran or with something found in Sharia law. When a professor at an Arab university quotes original research on the primary sources of Islam, he is immediately accused of fitna and his life is simultaneously threatened. Inter-Islamic fitna is what most Muslims understand when they think of the word ‘fitna’. Muslims cast a veil over ‘kafir fitna’…the politically incorrect free speech of wicked infidels that justifies jihad and brings Allah’s just punishment upon them. Mohammed discovered a brilliant way to criminalize differences of opinion with himself. He called his invention ‘fitna’ and made it the worst crime in his new religion. Any utterance that tests Mohammed’s method is a chargeable offence and a capital crime if it persists. The religious charge of blasphemy veils the serious political charge of treason against Mohammed. Mohammed is Allah’s vice-regent on earth. Not only does Mohammed define the truth, but he has a right to punish those who disagree. Moreover, Mohammed is both the constitution and the Islamic state. By disagreeing with Mohammed, you are calling him wrong, in error or worse yet a liar. That is slander and character assassination, but it is also the crime of treason against the Islamic Nation. The Koran likes to say infidels are accusing Mohammed of being a liar, since that sounds more dramatic and culpable. The Koran commands the punishment of fitna after making it sound reprehensible. Anyone disagreeing with Mohammed in any way has become an enemy of the state who should be treated severely and with violence. Private disagreements with Mohammed are acceptable, as long as they do not reach the eyes or ears of Muslims. However, public disagreement demands public Islamic punishment. ‘Punishment’ euphemistically means the death penalty, normatively by beheading. More at WesternFront
 It is always refreshing to hear Geert Wilders restate the obvious in a world gone Islamic. Turkey is an interesting case history, as they experimented with "secular" Islam. They tried to separate politics from Islam, and it appears to be failing miserably. It tells you a lot about the impossibility of the separation of mosque and state in Islam (like a body with no bones). The Turkish government fears a scheduled visit by Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders, saying it could dent Turkish relations with the Netherlands and Europe. But many secular and religious Turks say they would welcome a debate with the polemic politician. A planned visit to Turkey by Dutch members of parliament is up in the air after the Turkish Foreign Ministry on Tuesday said the delegation would not be welcome if it included Geert Wilders, the controversial leader of the populist Dutch party Party for Freedom (PVV). Wilders, known for his anti-Islam film "Fitna" and for comparing the Koran to Hitler's "Mein Kampf," strongly opposes Turkey's accession to the European Union.(Spiegel) “If this is the point of view of the Turkish government – Turkey, I should say – the Turkish government has no respect for freedom of speech or democracy, and is [itself] a totalitarian government,” he said. After the government’s harsh reaction to a prospective visit by controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders, a vocal critic of Islam, the European Affairs Committee of the Dutch parliament is expected to review its plans. ‘I only use democratic means, I am sorry; I have nothing to do with racism or fascism,’ Wilders tells the Hürriyet Daily News Far-right Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, a vocal critic of Islam who was declared “unwelcome” by Turkey, said the reaction of the government to his scheduled visit was “stupid.” “I think it is a very stupid reaction because I am not a racist, I am not a fascist. I am a democratically elected politician representing now one of the most popular parties in Holland,” he told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review in a telephone interview Thursday. Wilders, who leads the Party for Freedom, has plans to join a group of lawmakers from the European Affairs Committee of the Dutch parliament set to visit Turkey on Jan. 4. Turkey said the Dutch politician is unwelcome. “We reject the views of the person in question. We consider them racist and unacceptable,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Burak Özügergin said this week. “I only use democratic means, I am sorry; I have nothing to do with racism or fascism. I despise everything that has to do with these kinds of ideologies,” Wilders told the Daily News. “If this is the point of view of the Turkish government – Turkey, I should say – the Turkish government has no respect for freedom of speech or democracy, and is [itself] a totalitarian government,” he said. After Turkey’s harsh reaction to Wilder’s prospective visit, which is said to overshadow Turkish-Dutch relations because of the media attention expected to focus on the controversial politician, the Dutch committee is expected to review its plans. “If the Turkish government will keep its opinion that I am not welcome, I don’t know. I still hope they allow me to enter and also make sure that I will be safe,” said Wilders. He argued that his problem is with Islamic ideology. UPDATE: So progressive! With thanks to Atlas
 Brno: Czech Muslims invite controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who may arrive in the Czech Republic next week, to present his anti-Islamist short film Fitna and discuss his views with them, Lukas Lhotan, from Libertas Independent Agency, told CTK yesterday. Originally, senator Jiri Oberfalzer (Civic Democrats, ODS) invited Wilders to show his film and deliver an address in the Senate on November 30, but the invitation was cancelled after criticism from other senators and politicians. Libertas Independent Agency, associating Brno Muslims and friends of Islam, will send its offer to Wilders by e-mail. "We want to start a discussion," Lhotan said. He said the agency would pay for the lease of lecture rooms in Prague and Brno. Last year, Libertas Independent Agency organised a debate on Fitna. The film wishes to demonstrate that the Quran, and Islamic culture in general, motivates its followers to hate all who violate the Islamic teachings. Oberfalzer said Wilders's speech may be delivered elsewhere. Wilders demands the reduction of the influence of the European Union, he stood up against the Lisbon treaty and refuses Turkey's EU entry.
His Party for Freedom (PVV) seeks a halt to immigration to the Netherlands and the ban on the construction of mosques in the country. With thanks to Winds of Jihad H/T: gramfan.
 More dhimmitude. Czechs afraid to even discuss reality. Where is the Czech president when you need him? The controversial anti-Islamic movie Fitna by Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom, was due to be shown in the Czech Senate on November 30.
Mr Wilders, who will be coming to Prague at the invitation of a Czech anti-Islamist website, eurabia.cz, and Civic Democrat Senator Jiří Oberfalzer, was also going to deliver an address entitled “Free Speech and the Islamization of Europe”.
The news immediately sparked a huge controversy, and Senate leaders eventually banned Mr Wilders from appearing on the premises of the upper chamber. Civic Democrat Přemysl Sobotka is the Senate’s chair. Read it all via Radio Prague. Watch Fitna and other videos on our Videos page. With thanks to Creeping Sharia
 A Czech senator said Wednesday that he had invited anti-Islamic Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders to speak to the Czech Senate and present his controversial film. Senator Jan Oberfalzer said Wilders will talk about freedom of speech and the "Islamization of Europe" on November 30, and show his 15-minute film, "Fitna." The movie suggests Islam justifies violence and terror, and it prompted angry protests when it was released online last year. Wilders, the leader of Holland's right-wing Freedom Party, was denied entry to Britain to show his film to legislators in February, but he returned on Oct. 16 after successfully suing the British government to overturn the ban. Oberfalzer said in a statement that Wilders may say controversial things but they are "true in essence." JPost
 About 20 Muslim protesters demonstrated against the visit of Geert Wilders, the far-right Dutch MP, as he arrived for a meeting in Britain's parliament, forcing him to take refuge in a nearby building. Wilders, who faces prosecution in his homeland for anti-Islam remarks, came to London on Friday after winning an appeal earlier in the week against a ban on him entering the UK. Scores of police formed a barrier between a group calling itself "Islam in the UK" and Wilders' car as the protesters waved banners reading "Sharia for the Netherlands" and shouted "Wilders go to Hell" and "Muslims rise up". Wilders, whose film Fitna which argues the Quran incites violence, was barred in February because British ministers said his presence would threaten community harmony and public safety. Abu Muaz, a protester, said: "This man is an enemy of Islam and of Muslims and the British government is well aware of this and this just gives rise to so-called extremism." The politician had planned to speak to the media on a green area outside the parliament, but was forced to hold it inside a parliamentary office on the advice of police. Wilders said: "Being here today in the United Kingdom is a victory, it's not so much a victory for myself, because I am not that important, but it is a victory for freedom of speech." He is in London at the invitation of Lord Malcolm Pearson, a member of Britain's UK Independence party, to discuss showing Fitna in parliament. The film urges Muslims to tear out "hate-filled" verses from the Quran. Wilders, who has compared Islam to Nazism, faces prosecution in Amsterdam for inciting hatred and discrimination. Speaking on Friday, he said: "I have nothing against Muslims, I know the majority of Muslims in our society are law-abiding people. "I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture because I believe that the more Islam we get in our free societies, the less freedom we will get. "It is ridiculous that the UK government thought that my presence would in any way lead to violence." Britain's Asylum and Immigration Tribunal overturned the ban on Wilders entering the country on Tuesday following a challenge by the politician. A spokesman for the UK's interior ministry said: "We are disappointed by the court's decision. The government opposes extremism in all its forms." He said that the authorities would monitor Wilders during his stay in the UK, which could affect future decisions on whether to allow him entry. Source: Al Jazeera (English)
August 19 Dutch prosecutors declined on Tuesday to put far-right MP Geert Wilders on trial for distributing caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. But they found that a Holocaust-denying cartoon in a separate case was punishable. The prosecution service had received complaints about Wilders reproducing controversial Danish cartoons of the prophet on his website, as well as their display on a television programme. It had also received complaints about two cartoons published on the website of the Arab-European League (AEL) lobby group, one of which allegedly shows Jews denying that the Nazi Holocaust happened. The Danish cartoons and their reproduction were not punishable, the prosecution service said in a statement. "The cartoons are about the Prophet Mohamed, but don't say anything about Muslims. None of the cartoons are offensive towards Muslims or contribute to hatred, discrimination or violence against Muslims." The Holocaust cartoon "is punishable because it offends Jews on the basis of their race and/or religion." The AEL has agreed to remove the cartoon from its Dutch website, said the statement. "If it complies, charges will be provisionally dropped." The Mohammed cartoons originally appeared in Danish newspapers in September 2005, sparking protests across the Muslim world. Five people died in Pakistan in protests in February 2006. In a separate investigation, Wilders faces prosecution for inciting hatred against Muslims by making statements comparing Islam to Nazism. He made a 17-minute film, Fitna, which UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has called "offensively anti-Islamic". The screening of the film last year prompted also protests in Muslim nations. Source: Sydney Morning Herald
By Robert Spencer Geert Wilders, Dutch parliamentarian -- producer of the film expose Fitna -- and international champion of free speech, electrified a standing-room-only crowd in Washington Friday, declaring: “We will never apologize for being free men. We will never give in. We will never surrender. There is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty.” Wilders spoke these words at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, site of the Conservative Political Action Conference, at an independent event organized by Pamela Geller, publisher of the popular website AtlasShrugs.com, and co-sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Dr. Andrew Bostom (editor of The Legacy of Jihad and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism), and my own Jihad Watch. Geller’s determined efforts to get Wilders a platform in Washington show what one tireless citizen can do to make a difference -- a lesson that conservatives should increasingly heed in the Age of Obama, when so many organizations on the Right seem to have lost their focus and will. Read more ...Source: Human Events
 by By Amil Imani
Geert Wilders, an outspoken politician and chairman of the Freedom Party (PVV) in the Netherlands who produced a 16 minute-long movie “FITNA,” has been accused of Islamophobia and refused entry to the UK by immigration authorities after arriving at Heathrow airport in London. UK Independence party peer, Lord Pearson, had invited him to show his controversial film “Fitna,” which links Quran to terrorism, at the House of Lords.
The 16-minute documentary which juxtaposes passages of the Quran with the mass murder of 9/11 and other acts by radical Muslims was released to the Internet on March 27, 2008. It immediately sparked Muslims’ condemnation. They argued he is twisting selected passages from the Quran to suit his argument in the same way that extremists do to promote terrorism. In his short film, he presented the following passages from the Quran. You be the judge:
Al-Anfal 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 Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”
An-Nisa 4.56 "Those who have disbelieved our signs, we shall roast them in fire. Whenever their skins are cooked to a turn, we shall substitute new skins for them, that they may feel the punishment; Verily Allah is sublime and wise."
Muhammad 47.4 “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah, - He will never let their deeds be lost.”
An-Nisa 4.89 “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Al-Anfal 8.39 “Fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.”
Regrettably, a court in his hometown, Amsterdam, ruled that he should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred, though Wilders has appealed against the decision since he was exercising his free speech. The film's title comes from the Arabic word ‘Fitna’, which can simultaneously mean: a schism, secession, upheaval and anarchy.
The Dutch politician arrived in the U.S. last Thursday to show his controversial film “Fitna” and meet with lawmakers in Washington. He also appeared last Friday at a banquet in the Omni-Shoreham Hotel in Washington D.C. The event was organized by the lovely, fearless and true American patriot, Pamela Geller, from the well-known blog Atlas Shrugs. Other honorable and distinguished individuals who assisted Pamela with financing the event were Dr. Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer and David Horowitz.
Wilders gave a phenomenal speech about freedom of speech at the grand ballroom. Wilder is correct in his assertion about Islam in Europe. The Muslims' killing campaign did not end with their defeat at the gates of Vienna. Their eviction from Spain was a temporary forced retreat. But now the Muslims have, in huge numbers, penetrated the gates of every city and town of Europe without yet having to use their swords.
In Europe, the gullible, self-indulging native non-Muslims have welcomed the arrivals as a source of cheap labor to serve their needs for a life devoted to self-gratification with little concern for the future. Europe is living on credit, and the creditors are hordes of Muslims who have already started delivering their bills.
Many affluent Europeans who see the handwriting on the wall are packing and moving to North America, Australia, and other seemingly safe lands. Yet the Muslims’ bills, with compounded interest, shall continue to be delivered to those who remain behind. In response, politicians will keep bending backwards to placate the evermore powerful creditors by gradually instituting the Islamic Sharia as the law of the land. Before very long, Europe will have to turn its deed over to the new Islamic invaders or rebel and fight block by block, city by city. That’s when Europe shall bleed, once again.
Life is precious. It is to be protected, nurtured and celebrated. Mankind is moving, perhaps at a glacier pace, toward reconciliation, ever-expanding inclusiveness without any group or ideology imposing itself on others. Any attempt against this trend of unity in diversity is doomed to failure, as exemplified by the demise of fascism and communism.
The charter of Quran for most parts preaches discrimination, death and imposition of its dogma on everyone. Islam, just like fascism and communism, is a dysfunctional ideology that needs to be abandoned. Humanity has matured considerably since the time of Muhammad. In order to continue its forward march, mankind must follow a roadmap appropriate for its age and state of development. It is foolish to insist that a book written over 1400 years ago must serve as the one and only guide for humanity.
Reforming Islam is unfortunately not a realistic possibility. About the only universal agreement that exists among Islamic authorities is that every word of the Quran is the word of Allah and is not subject to human modification, ever. The ‘Hadith’ also enjoys a similar sacrosanct standing. And of course, the faithful Muhammad’s conduct as recorded in the Sunna is the model to be emulated. Hence, one can pick and choose, but one cannot discard or revise any part of the scripture. For this reason, a Martin Luther type reformation has not happened and will not likely ever happen within Islam.
Sell hate and people queue several blocks to buy. Sell love and you will be mostly by your lonely self. Is this a cynical view? No, it is a realistic one. It describes a human’s lower and primitive nature which must be painstakingly overcome through persistent education and awakening of man’s higher nature.
It is heartening to see that there are people such as Greet Wilders, Robert Spencer, Dr. Ali Sina, Dr. Wafa Sultan , Nonie Darwish and many others who cherish liberty as humanity's most precious treasure and risk their lives to defend it against the surging monolithic Islamism. I salute these valiant people and call upon the free people of the world over to swell their ranks and reverse the deadly tide of Islamofascism. Source: Amil Imani
By Andrew G. Bostom Beaumarchais’ Marriage of Figaro, written at the close of the 18th century, included this freedom of speech monologue in Act V, Scene 3, I cobble together a verse comedy about the customs of the harem, assuming that, as a Spanish writer, I can say what I like about Mohammed without drawing hostile fire. Next thing, some envoy from God knows where turns up and complains that in my play I have offended the Ottoman empire, Persia, a large slice of the Indian peninsula, the whole of Egypt, and the kingdoms of Barca [Ethiopia], Tripoli, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. And so my play sinks without trace, all to placate a bunch of Muslim princes, not one of whom, as far as I know, can read but who beat the living daylights out of us and say we are “Christian dogs.” Since they can't stop a man thinking, they take it out on his hide instead. Sadly, today, over two centuries later, Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders’ free speech rights are under attack in an effort to appease the same irredentist Muslim attitudes - attitudes which are devoid of self-criticism, and violently opposed to any criticism of Islam by non-Muslim “infidels.” Wilders’ film Fitna - the putative source of this Muslim outrage - includes examples of how various Koranic verses are used by Muslim clerics and political leaders to incite Muslim populations to violence. And Fitna is entirely faithful to classical, mainstream Islamic exegesis on the Koranic verses cited in the film regardless of what cultural jihadists, and their witting or unwitting apologists and abettors, may claim. It is beyond Orwellian to vilify, let alone prosecute Wilders – who simply holds up a mirror to Islamic societies – for being in any way responsible for the Koranic incitement and Muslim violence his documentary faithfully records, and he appropriately condemns. Read more ...Source: FrontPage Magazine
 Gagging Fitna and Wilders does not promote dialogue among civilizationsBy Samir Khalil Samir, sj The British government has blocked the Dutch member of parliament from entering the country, because of his controversial opinions about Islam. For some, human rights are being set aside in the West in order to avoid displeasing Muslims; for others, silence is better than provocation. But the problem of the connection between Islam and violence remains a question that no one wants to address. A commentary by the Islamologist Fr. Samir Khalil Samir. Beirut (AsiaNews) - The British government has denied the Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders permission to enter to the country. Wilders had been invited to present his film "Fitna" to the House of Lords. The film, produced about a year ago, is intended to demonstrate the strong connection between the Qur'an and international terrorism, with images of the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York (2001) and the attacks in London (2004) and Madrid (2005).
Wilders, who was stopped at the Heathrow airport, said that for him the ban on entering the country marked "a very sad day" for democracy.
Last year, the movie "Fitna" was released via the internet and provoked many reactions in the Muslim world. The decision to block Wilders was justified by reason of "public order," to dampen "extremism."
Foreign Minister David Miliband said that Great Britain has a "profound commitment to freedom of speech but there is no freedom to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre and there is no freedom to stir up hate, religious and racial hatred, according to the laws of the land." But other observers view the attitude of the British government as too fearful, and too much inclined to not spoiling relations with Middle Eastern countries and their investments in Great Britain. AsiaNews has obtained a commentary on this situation from the Islamologist Fr. Samir Khalil Samir.
One thing is clear: the decision of the British foreign office to block the visit of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders is a political reaction, dictated by political motives. The question that can be asked is whether this is a good policy. It could be that this expedient on the part of Great Britain is the only way to avoid religious conflict, but it seems worthwhile to me to make an observation.
I saw the film "Fitna" a year ago, and recently I have viewed a few clips from it again. The film is rather violent and crude, on purpose: its intention is to demonstrate that Islam is a violent religion in itself.
I don't like the film. For one thing, it depicts a reality with many citations from the Qur'an, to demonstrate the violence of this religion. Without a doubt, the reality presented in "Fitna" is partial, and in no way an accurate depiction of Islam as a whole.
The film is certainly provocative, because it intends to assert that Islam is a religion of violence. But in effect, there is violence both in the Qur'an, and in the life of Mohammed. Still today, there are Muslims who carry out violence in the name of the Qur'an and of the prophet of Islam.
But it must be said that the response to a violent, partial film cannot be violence, and not even the decision to prevent someone from speaking. The minister's decision to block Wilders, and the threats against him, fall into this category.
I have seen that the European Arab League has responded to this film with another film, a sort of "anti-Fitna"; other Muslim filmmakers have done the same thing. Such a reaction is more admirable than the one displayed by the Foreign Office. Although I do not like "Fitna," I am against the decision of the British government. All the more so in that Wilders was supposed to present the film to the House of Lords, and not to a political group.
Wilders's speech is, without a doubt, violent and fanatical. This is clear from reading just a few of his statements. But in the West, freedom of speech is a right that cannot be denied without creating other problems.
I have read at least 60 reactions from Muslims to the film "Fitna," although few of them had seen it. Their reactions are mainly of rejection, a violent response. Only one commentary states: "It is true, this film is violent, it is not helpful, and it increases our perception of being besieged on every side; we see Islamophobia everywhere. But it is also true that our reactions make a great deal of room for this Islamophobia."
I wonder: how is it that the Muslim world - and also part of the West - is so sensitive that it must gag every critic and even raise so much (physical) violence against (verbal) violence?
The Muslim world has not yet assimilated certain values, like the right to speech and to criticism, even though this can sometimes be unjust, or partially unjust.
There is a beautiful verse in the Qur'an that says: "In debate, dispute with them in a superior manner, and not on their level." This verse should exclude this kind of violent reaction. And yet it must be said: there is violence in the name of Islam.
In some of the "anti-Fitna" films, there are images of Israelis fighting against the Palestinians; then there are images of crusaders, with cross and swords; then images of Americans in Vietnam. One film has been produced by the Islamic society al Furkan. In these "anti-Fitna" films as well, violence connected to religion is denounced. But the difference is that the Muslims who carry out violence do so in the name of their faith, constantly citing passages from the sacred book and the hadiths. The Israelis and Americans wage war not in the name of the Bible or the Gospel, but in the name of their politics. This is not a question of crusades, because it is foolish to compare contemporary events with those of a long gone past.
If the West goes to war, it does so for political purposes, economic, etc. Unfortunately, in Islam there are many imams who preach a religious war against nonbelievers, not a moral war, but a physical war, always quoting the Qur'an. Violence in the name of God is to be rejected in every religion. John Paul II spoke out against it many times, and Benedict XVI is doing so today. It is therefore worthwhile not to block discussions, but to become engaged and demonstrate falsehood, the connections between religion and politics, correcting one another.
In conclusion, I do not believe that the film "Fitna"is helpful: it serves only to provoke Muslims to make a break with violence, and non-Muslims to react, and not remain silent. On the other hand, the British reaction is not valid either, it does not help Muslims to criticize themselves, nor to stop violence in the name of Islam.
It is increasingly urgent that there be a group of Muslims and non-Muslims fighting together for freedom of speech and conscience, and capable of dialogue; to advance self-criticism of persons and civilization; distinguishing precisely between religion and politics.
Source: http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=14484&size=
 Nizhny Novgorod, February 25, Interfax – Muslim Spiritual Directorate of the Nizhny Novgorod Region urged their believers to boycott goods from Holland in response to the movie coming in the country and insulting, as muftis believe, Prophet Muhammad’s wives. “To respond such an offence, Muslims of the world have decided to boycott goods made in Holland and film authors and an MP will bear responsibility for all consequences of this action,” Deputy Head of the Regional Mufti Council on educational work Abdulbari Muslimov said in his address. The author noted that Holland tulips and roses are very popular in Russia as many people buy them for February 23 and March 8. “However, we have to find a substitute for this pleasant habit as our religion urge us to do good and correct evil,” Muslimov said. According to him, a legal method of “correcting evil” is “a boycott of goods, public criticism and prayer for correction.” The Muftis representative urged Muslims not to buy “even a gram of goods “made in Holland” and lift prayers “to correct madmen who desecrate religious shrines.” However, when an Interfax correspondent asked the author to specify what film he opposes, he was at a loss and repeated it was about the Prophet’s wives. Source: Interfax
Caucasian mufti suggests Muslims-boycotters of Holland flowers should also deport Guus HiddinkMoscow, February 27, Interfax – Head of the Coordinating Center of the Muslims of the North Caucasus Ismail Berdiyev is ironic about the appeal to boycott Holland flowers made by the Nizhny Novgorod muftis. “When I heard that Muslims from the Nizhniy Novgorod Region urged not to buy flowers from Holland, I thought they have started growing tulips themselves,” Mufti Berdiyev told Interfax-Religion. Deputy head of the Nizhny Novgorod Region Muslim Spiritual Directorate on educational work Abdulbari Muslimov urged the believers to boycott flowers and other goods from Holland in response to the movie coming in the country and insulting, as the Mufti believes, Prophet Muhammad’s wives. Muslimov could not specify what film it was. Berdiyev noted that “to declare a boycott, you have to do something yourself.” “Thus, we can come to deport chief coach of Russian national team Guus Hiddink,” the interviewee of the agency said. According to him, if the movie, opposed by Muslims from the Nizhny Novgorod Region, really insults Islam and feelings of the believers “it should be nipped in the bud.” “However, those who grow flowers have nothing to do with it. You should address those who insults,” Berdiyev said. Source: InterfaxAbdulbari Muslimov
Ismail Berdiyev
Latest recipients of the Distinguished Islamofascist Award
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
In twenty years of working as a cop in the Colorado Criminal Justice System, I never heard anything from a judge like what the Amsterdam Chief Judge said yesterday at the opening of Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders’ criminal prosecution. 
Posts
.jpg){kind=link}