"A flor de Junho dá fruto, homem sozinho é que não"

O título deste postal é retirado de uma canção do Sérgio Godinho e serve para dar as boas vindas ao Francisco, que se vem juntar a mim com a finalidade de melhorar a qualidade do que é publicado aqui no blogue e para me aliviar a carga. Conheço pessoalmente o Francisco há já algum tempo e confiar-lhe-ia o cuidado da minha família se necessário fosse. É sério e responsável. É solteiro e bom rapaz. Bem-vindo, obrigado, e bons trabalhos. Resta acrescentar que a participação do Francisco se inicia com um postal no qual o Francisco responde à questão que ele próprio colocou na caixa de comentários da entrada Efeitos corrosivos.

«Até Domingo Que Vem Sérgio Godinho

Nunca vivi nada em vão cada qual sabe do que tem ninguém pertence a ninguém seja inimigo ou irmão

Seja inimigo ou irmão temos a nortada na pele a discutir do farnel já se perdeu muito pão

Já se perdeu muito pão e as bocas ainda a sonhar a ver esperanças no ar quando há certezas no chão

E para aqui estamos em salamaleques a lamber mãos feitas para abanar leques a pedir bis, a gritar bravo, a aplaudir, muito bem e até domingo que vem

Nunca vivi nada em vão vi muita palavra tornar-se em tante gente em disfarce e em muita boca traição

E em muita boca traição e em cada de nós um olhar se nos vierem falar sabemos quem eles são

Sabemos quem eles são como quem sabe de si mesmo o medo, a vida desfez-mo a letra me tomarão

E para aqui estamos em salamaleques a lamber mãos feitas para abanar leques a pedir bis, a gritar bravo, a aplaudir, muito bem e até domingo que vem

Sabemos já d´antemão quem nasceu p´ra viver de luto a flor de Junho dá fruto o homem sozinho é que não

O homem sozinho é que não que diga quem quase morreu a perguntar "quem sou eu" e a viver da solidão

E a viver da solidão fomos pouco a pouco fazendo a nossa cova no vento abrigados num caixão

E para aqui estamos em salamaleques a lamber mãos feitas para abanar leques a pedir bis, a gritar bravo, a aplaudir, muito bem e até domingo que vem.»

Sérgio Godinho

Uma lição sobre a visão muçulmana dos judeus

Via Vlad Tepes.

Morrer a rir (2)

Humor fundamentado nas Escrituras e nos escritos islâmicos, com indicações dos versículos e tudo. Um Alá negro, satânico; um Mafoma igual a si próprio. Absolutamente de antologia o segmento a partir do minuto 6:18. Via Tundra Tabloids.

Julgamento de Wilders (5c)

Video do discurso. Via e legendas Vlad Tepes.

Julgamento de Wilders (5b)

O discurso de Wilders, em castelhano, via La Yijad en Eurabia:

«Sr. Portavoz, jueces del juzgado, me gustaría hacer uso de mi derecho a hablar durante unos pocos minutos.

La Libertad es el más precioso de todos nuestros logros, y el más vulnerable. La gente ha dedicado sus vidas a ella y ha dado sus vidas por ella. Nuetra libertad en este país es el resultado de varios siglos. Es la consecuencia de una historia que no conoce igul y nos ha traido a donde estamos ahora

Creo con todo mi corazón y mi alma que la libertad en los Países Bajos está en peligro. Que aquello que es nuestra herencia, aquello con lo cual generaciones pasadas sólo pudieron soñar, esta libertad, no es ya algo dado, ni algo patente.

Yo dedico mi vida a la defensa de nuestra libertad. Sé cuales son los riesgos, y pago un precio por ello todos los días. No me quejo al respecto; es por decisión propia. Lo veo como mi deber y por ello por lo que hoy estoy aquí.

Sé que las palabras que en ocasiones uso son en ocasiones duras. No es mi intención perdonar a una ideología de conquista y destrucción, pero no lo estoy más a ofender a la gente. No tengo nada en contra de los musulmanes. Tengo un problema con el Islam y con la islamización de nuestro país, porque el Islam está en oposición a la libertad.

Las generaciones futuras se preguntarán cómo nosotros, en el año 2010, en este lugar, en esta sala, nos ganamos nuestro más preciado logro. Se preguntarán si hay libertad en este debate para ambos bandos, y así también para los críticos del Islam, ¿o si sólo un bando de esta discusión tiene derecho a ser oído en Holanda?. Si la libertad de expresión en HOlanda se aplica a todos, ¿o sólo a unos pocos?. La respuesta a esto es a la vez la respuesta a si la libertad todavía tiene un hogar en este país.

La Libertad no ha sido nunca propiedad de un pequeño grupo, sino siempre la herencia de todos nosotros. Estamos todos bendecidos por ella.

La dama Justicia lleva una venda en los ojos, pero tiene muy buen oido. Espero que escuche las siguientes frases, alto y claro:

No es sólo un derecho, sino también un deber de la gente libre, el hablar en contra de cada ideología que amenace la libertad. Thomas Jefferson, el tercer presidente de los Estados Unidos, estaba en lo correcto: El precio de la libertad es la vigilancia eterna.

Espero que la libertad de expresión triunfe en este juicio.

En conclusión, señor Portavoz, jueces del juzgado.

Este juicio trata claramente acerca de la libertad de expresión. Pero este juicio es también el procedimiento para establecer la verdad. ¿Son las afirmaciones que he realizado y las comparaciones que he hecho, como se citan en el requerimiento, verdaderas?. ¿Si algo es verdad, entonces puede ser todavía punible?, Esta es la razón por la que os insto a no sólo mi petición de que se pueda oir a los testigos y expertos sobre la materia de la libertad de expresión, sino que os pido explícitamente que honréis mi petición de escuchar a testigos y expertos sobre el Islam. No me refiero solamente al Sr. Jansen y al Sr. Admiraal, sino también a testigos y expertos de Israel, Estados Unidos, y el Reino Unido. Sin esos testigos, no puedo defenderme adecuadamente y, en mi opinión, este no sería un juicio justo.»

Julgamento de Wilders (5)

Discurso de Geert Wilders perante os juizes do tribunal onde começou hoje a ser julgado, no sítio do PVV:

«Mister Speaker, judges of the court,

I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.

Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.

I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.

I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.

I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.

Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.

Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.

Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:

It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.

In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.

This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be an fair trial.»

Imagem: Bosch Fawstin

Julgamento de Wilders (4)

Via Tea and Politics, no site do PVV:

«Geert Wilders’ Trial: Who Will be Next? By Harry Antonides

On January 21, 2009, Dutch authorities took another step toward the Islamization of Holland.

On that day the Amsterdam Court of Appeal overturned the decision of a lower court, which last year had found Geert Wilders, the controversial member of the Dutch parliament, not guilty of hate speech. This lower court acknowledged that some of his statements may be offensive but they contributed to a social debate that did not give cause for criminal prosecution.

The Court of Appeal’s reasoning for overturning this decision is a jumble of contradictions and doubletalk that brings to mind the newspeak of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. The Court gives three reasons for its decision.

1984 is Now One, Wilders’ views, including the message of his short film Fitna, in style and substance are ”characterized by biased, strongly generalizing phrasings with a radical meaning, ongoing reiteration and an increasing intensity, as a result of which hate is created...” Wilders has indeed insulted Islamic worshipers by attacking the symbols of their belief.

Two, the Court finds that a possible criminal prosecution or conviction is admissible according to the norms of European jurisprudence, which at the same time “considers the freedom of expression of paramount importance.”

Then follows another sentence that is convoluted and without any sense because it is self-contradictory. It says that this Court has concluded that prosecution is warranted, “ provided that it is proportionate, does not necessarily conflict with the freedom of expression of Wilders, since statements which create hate and grief made by politicians, taken their special responsibility into consideration, are not permitted according to European standards either.”

Three, the Court finds that criminal prosecution is opportune in the Dutch situation because “the instigation of hatred in a democratic society constitutes such a serious matter that a general interest is at stake in order to draw a clear boundary in the public debate.”

The Court explains that the Dutch culture of public debate is based on tolerance of opposing views, while Islamic immigrants may be expected to have consideration for the existing sentiments among the Dutch for their (Islamic) belief, “which is partly at odds with Dutch and European values and norms.”

Instead of calling for Muslims to appreciate and respect the Dutch culture, the Court then reiterates its opinion that prosecution of Wilders is warranted because he compared radical Islam with Nazism, which is contrary to the general interest of society.

Here is a clear case of language that lacks any kind of rhetorical firmness and clarity. George Orwell was perceptive when he showed that the destruction of freedom goes hand in hand with the corruption of language. Then words are used not to communicate truth but to hide it with hollow words that say the very opposite to what is real.

Truth is Irrelevant The Court does not concern itself with the truth of Wilders’ opinions, but with the claims of radical Islamists that their religion has been insulted, which in the eyes of many Muslims calls for the death penalty. Wilders has received many such threats, which in normal times would result in prosecution of those who issue such threats.

But these are not normal times, and though he is a member of the Dutch parliament, leader of the nine-member Freedom Party (VVD), he is forced to live like a fugitive, under 24 hours-a-day police protection, forced to move from place to place and deprived of all the normal benefits of citizenship in a free society.

He has a number of law suits pending, including one by an imam who is demanding damages of 55.000 Euros for his hurt feelings. The state of Jordan has requested that Wilders be extradited and tried in a Jordanian court for blaspheming Islam. Now Wilders no longer travels outside the country unless he receives assurance from the government of the country to be visited that he will not be charged or extradited.

His invitation from the British House of Lords to discuss his film was withdrawn after the Muslim Lord Ahmed is reported to have threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Wilders from entering the House. The Secretary-General of the UN condemned the airing of Fitna in the strongest terms. He said that “there is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence.” The irony is that this is exactly the point of Wilders’ position.

The bitter reality is that the persecution of this member of the Dutch parliament now living under a death threat proves the truth of his contention that radial Islam is incompatible with Western democracy.

Wilders’ unpardonable sin is that he insists on taking the Islamists at their words. He has simply stated the obvious. His brief film Fitna, though in a provocative way, quotes some of the warlike verses of the Koran and shows images of 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. It also has clips of angry demonstrators shouting the praise of Allah while calling for the death of infidels.

In the Netherlands crowds have shouted an especially revolting expression of Jew-hatred: “Hamas, Hamas, Joden aan het gas” ( Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the gas). Last October, a Muslim radical with a long police record attacked two police officers in Amsterdam. One of the officers nearly died; the attacker was shot. This event touched off days of rioting and car burning, but the Dutch press avoided any mention of Islamic radicalism

In Copenhagen recently Muslim demonstrators were heard to scream Alla-hu Akbar while giving the “Heil Hitler” salute and calling for the death of Jews.

The United Nations: No Friend of Freedom While such demonstrations are taking place in many parts of the world, the Islamic bloc at the United Nations is busy furthering the Islamization of the West. In 1990, the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

While it pays lip service to the freedom of all people, it makes very clear that all rights and laws are to be interpreted and applied in accordance with Islamic law. For example, article 24 states: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.”

The OIC, now the largest voting bloc, is determined to use the UN as the wedge to silence all critics of Islam. Since 2005 the General Assembly has passed a so-called anti-defamation resolution, which until now has been non-binding. The OIC has begun a campaign to have the UN adopt a binding resolution, which in effect would criminalize all criticism of Islam.

Last year the UN Human Rights Council - including China, Angola, Cuba and Saudi Arabia - adopted a resolution that moved a step closer to such criminalization. It decided to mandate the Special Rapporteur of Freedom of Expression not only to report violations of this freedom but also to include cases in which that freedom is “abused.” Such “abuse” will include all criticism of Islam.

As the Canadian delegation noted: “instead of promoting freedom of expression the Special Rapporteur would be policing its exercise.” It is clear that the backers of this anti-defamation resolution want to silence all critics of Islam. Why have the delegations of the free nations not opposed this move in clear and unmistakable ways?

Only recently did the French ambassador on behalf of the European Union warn that the EU would not accept such a resolution which in fact would destroy the freedom of expression. But most of the Western UN members failed to condemn this attempt to silence the critics of Islam. Although the Canadian representative protested against this resolution, in the end Canada abstained rather than vote against it. The U.S. also abstained.

The next battle lines are now being drawn in preparation for he forthcoming 2009 Durban Review Conference (Durban II). This UN World Conference Against Racism shows all the signs of a repeat performance of Durban I, which in fact became a platform for vicious anti-Israel and pro-Islam propaganda. One of its agenda points will be a recommendation that the UN make defamation of Islam a criminal offence and thus no longer allowed under the “pretext of freedom of religion, counter terrorism or national security.”

That the UN has degenerated into a nest of scheming power blocs mostly tilted against the Western democracies, is bad enough. But that those very same democracies allow their own legislative and judiciary institutions to silence the critics of radical Islam is beyond belief.

The case of Geert Wilders is especially reprehensible, but the same thing is happening in England, France, Germany, Belgium, the U.S, Canada, and elsewhere. The biggest challenge is to distinguish truth from falsehood. Not a bad rule of thumb is to be very suspicious of the ruling majority, especially if they belong to the herd of the politically correct.

If you really want to understand the full scope of the controversy surrounding Geert Wilders, I can wholeheartedly recommend Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.»

Julgamento de Wilders (3)

Entrevista com o professor de direito Afshin Ellian⁽¹⁾, iraniano radicado na Holanda, in Gates of Vienna:

«(...) You said that the Wilders Trial reminds you of justice in your country of origin, Iran. Is that not somewhat exaggerated? “The Netherlands, of course, is not comparable with Iran, it is but about the experience. If you cannot say that the Islam is a backward religion and that Muhammad is a criminal, then you are living in an Islamic country, my friend, because there you also cannot say such things. I may say Christ was a f** and Mary was a w****, but apparently I should stay off of Muhammad.” (...)»

Lede tudo. ⁽¹⁾ - Afshin Ellian was born February 17, 1966 in Tehran, Iran. In 1983 he fled the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. He had studied medicine in Kabul an came to the Netherlands in 1989, where he studied criminal law, constitutional law, and philosophy. At present he is a professor of law, a poet, a columnist (Elsevier, NRC Handelsblad), and a professor of citizenship, social cohesion and multiculturalism at the University of Leiden.

Julgamento de Wilders (2)

«Far-right MP Geert Wilders on trial for discrimination against Muslims 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 (...) 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 freedom of speech is on the verge of collapsing,” Mr Wilders added. “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.”

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.

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.

(...)

“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.”»

Apenas uma observação: discordo em absoluto da classificação de Wilders e do PVV como partido de "extrema-direita". Nas declarações de Wilders nada aponta nesse sentido, como afirma Daniel Pipes no artigo hoje aqui divulgado. De resto, a notícia foca alguns dos pontos essenciais deste caso. Via Jihad Watch.

Imagem: Bosch Faustin

Julgamento de Wilders: primeira sessão

«Islam critic Geert Wilders goes on trial in Netherlands Amsterdam - The trial of Dutch member of parliament and Islam critic Geert Wilders for discrimination and incitement to hatred opened in an Amsterdam court on Wednesday. The court is to decide whether the leader of the liberal-rightist Freedom Party PVV violated Dutch law by calling the Koran a "fascist book" and Islam a "backward culture." At the start of proceedings, the presiding judge said it had been "suggested" that the court had already convicted Wilders before its first hearings. He would therefore "like to emphasize that only after the last word in these hearings has been said, the court will deliberate about its decision." In his opening statement, Wilders' lawyer Bram Moskowicz questioned why the trial was taking place in Amsterdam rather than in The Hague, where his client works. Most of the complaints filed against Wilders since 2006 were related to remarks he made as a lawmaker in the Hague-based parliament, he said. Moskowicz also argued that Wilders' remarks about Islam were made only in the context of his work as a lawmaker, and that he never spoke "a titre personnel," or in his personal capacity. Prosecutors claim Wilders' 16-minute internet video Fitna, released in March 2008, incites people to hatred against Muslims. The film warns against the spread of radical Islam and the alleged "Islamization" of the Netherlands. Wilders faces a maximum of 16 months imprisonment or a fine of 10,000 euros (14,000 dollars) if convicted on all the charges. Almost 6 per cent of the Netherlands' 16.5 million inhabitants are Muslim.»

A propósito desta última frase, ler a entrada Efeitos corrosivos. Acrescento um novo separador: Serviço Público. Via Tundra Tabloids.

Julgamento de Wilders

Começa hoje o julgamento de Gert Wilders, o qual tentaremos acompanhar aqui e no twitter. Podemos começar esse seguimento lendo um texto de Daniel Pipes publicado no sítio da National Review:

«Why I Stand with Geert Wilders Who is the most important European alive today? I nominate the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. I do so because he is best placed to deal with the Islamic challenge facing the continent. He has the potential to emerge as a world-historical figure. That Islamic challenge consists of two components: on the one hand, an indigenous population’s withering Christian faith, inadequate birthrate, and cultural diffidence, and on the other an influx of devout, prolific, and culturally assertive Muslim immigrants. This fast-moving situation raises profound questions about Europe: Will it retain its historic civilization or become a majority-Muslim continent living under Islamic law (the Shari’a)? Wilders, 46, founder and head of the Party for Freedom (PVV), is the unrivaled leader of those Europeans who wish to retain their historic identity. That’s because he and the PVV differ from most of Europe’s other nationalist, anti-immigrant parties. The PVV is libertarian and mainstream conservative, without roots in neo-Fascism, nativism, conspiricism, antisemitism, or other forms of extremism. (Wilders publicly emulates Ronald Reagan.) Indicative of this moderation is Wilders’s long-standing affection for Israel that includes two years’ residence in the Jewish state, dozens of visits, and his advocating the transfer of the Dutch embassy to Jerusalem. In addition, Wilders is a charismatic, savvy, principled, and outspoken leader who has rapidly become the most dynamic political force in the Netherlands. While he opines on the full range of topics, Islam and Muslims constitute his signature issue. Overcoming the tendency of Dutch politicians to play it safe, he calls Muhammad a devil and demands that Muslims “tear out half of the Koran if they wish to stay in the Netherlands.” More broadly, he sees Islam itself as the problem, not just a virulent version of it called Islamism. The PVV has done well electorally, winning 6 percent of the seats in the November 2006 national parliamentary elections and 16 percent of Dutch seats in the June 2009 European Union elections. Polls now generally show the PVV winning a plurality of votes and becoming the country’s largest party. Were Wilders to become prime minister, he could take on a leadership role for all Europe. But he faces daunting challenges. (...) Wilders must also overcome his opponents’ dirty tactics. Most notably, they have finally, after two and a half years of preliminary skirmishes, succeeded in dragging him to court on charges of hate speech and incitement to hatred. The public prosecutor’s case against Wilders opens in Amsterdam on January 20; if convicted, Wilders faces a fine of up to $14,000 or as many as 16 months in jail. Remember, he is his country’s leading politician. Plus, due to threats against his life, he always travels with bodyguards and incessantly changes safe houses. Who exactly, one wonders, is the victim of incitement? (...) Ironically, were Wilders fined or jailed, it would probably improve his chances to become prime minister. But principle outweighs political tactics here. He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization. The outcome of his trial and his freedom to speak have implications for us all.»

Roman Christendom

Entrada telegráfica para fazer referência a um blogue que leva a sério a defesa da Igreja Católica de algumas acusações de colaboracionismo com o regime nacional-socialista do III Reich, o Roman Christendom, onde se podem ler vários artigos em defesa de Pio XII e um outro sobre a perseguição nacional-socialista à Igreja, aos jesuítas em particular. Defender o cristianismo e os seus pilares, é defender o Ocidente perante a corrosão progressista que o debilita para a resistência à ofensiva islâmica.

Para uma verdadeira compreensão do islão: fitna (2)

Segunda parte do artigo de Kenneth Roberts sobre o conceito islâmico designado fitna, cuja primeira parte publiquei aqui anteriormente.

«Fitna and the Kafir, Part Two 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 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.

The Islamic right to censor fitna trumps gender equality, freedom of expression, freedom to change one's religion and other freedoms. In law, this specious argument is called 'special pleading'. It is pure dualism and supremacism. In essence, this makes Shariah law superior to the UDHR and enshrines Islamic discrimination in the name of human rights.

Inter-Islamic fitna, i.e. dissension or discord between Muslims, is the second class of fitna. Theological disagreements between Shi'ite Muslims and Sunnite Muslims are also called fitna. Both sides believe the other worthy of death for disagreeing with Mohammed. Unfortunately, both sides do not see that their own opinion of Mohammed's method may also be in error. Only the other fellow is in error and he is obviously a heretic. 'And Allah knows best.'

Consequently, there is no Sunnite mosque permitted in Teheran and no Shi'ite mosque permitted in Saudi Arabia's holy cities. Fitna/discord between Muslims themselves and between Muslims and infidels is primarily a political question about who possesses the political upper hand. This right of supremacy cannot be discussed, since it comes from Allah and is defended by sacred violence. What you believe about Mohammed determines your human rights status in an Islamic state.

Moreover, the concept of fitna makes pluralism practically impossible, since only one political party can be in perfect agreement with Mohammed. Having an opposition party in an Islamic country would be the evil of fitna...another opinion would obviously disagree with Mohammed and be condemned. Fitna paints Islamic countries into a philosophical corner where dictatorship is the only government system possible.

The ultimate use of fitna is a military one. Fitna is any utterance that demoralizes or confuses Muslim troops so they become weak as a military force, unconvinced of their political mission of world dominance and hesitant to commit jihad. Fitna undercuts the Islamic chain of command. Fitna destroys the cohesiveness and certainty of jihadists…that unquestioning certainty that makes them ready to kill the critics of Mohammed.

Faint-hearted, non-fanatical Muslims will not defend Mohammed's method or expand their Allah-given supremacy over the infidels. If Muslims are in doubt about the rightness of Mohammed's method, they will peter out, while the infidels win the earth for Satan. This must not be. Fitna must be stopped and reversed, since it impedes the Islamic state without borders. Fitna thus becomes a political charge of treason against the Allah-established Ummah (nation) of Islam. Fitna deserves the death penalty because Allah said it is worse than murder (Koran 2:191). It is every Muslim's duty to use sacred violence to stamp out fitna and create the utopian Islamic world where disagreement can no longer exist.

"And fight them (all infidels) until there is no more fitnah (disagreeing with Allah/Mohammed) and the religion (all-pervasive lifestyle and system of Sharia law) will all be for Allah alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (to disagree with Allah/Mohammed) then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do." (Koran 8.39)

"(Allah) sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the kafirs may be averse." (Koran 9.33)»

O Hamas por si mesmo

Via Muslims Against Sharia, no canal de televisão do MEMRI, o MEMRI TV, no YouTube.

A coragem do artista dimi (2)

N.B.: embora as imagens e a ideia do objecto e da acção putativamente artísticos me entristeçam e repugnem, acho bem que não tenham fechado a exposição.

«Socking it to the Virgin Mary

by Baron Bodissey

When I was a little kid, my big brother would take it out on me whenever one of our parents punished him. It didn’t matter whether I shared any responsibility for the crime that got him in trouble — as soon as we were alone in the room: WHAP! That’s what the cultural Left reminds me of. Islam is the Big Daddy, and not to be trifled with. We kuffar have learned that Muslims have a tendency to slaughter infidels, especially infidels who do anything that seems to insult Islam. For those who somehow remained unaware of their subservient position, the murder of Theo Van Gogh was a belated wake-up call: Don’t mess with Big Daddy. So Little Brother Christianity makes a nice scapegoat. When Big Daddy humiliates you, turn around and sock it to the Christians. WHAP! There — don’t you feel better now? Here’s an épater-les-bourgeois example of this dynamic at work in the Flemish city Bruges (Brugge), as described in an excerpt from “Diary Thoughts” (16) by Benno Barnard, and translated by our Flemish correspondent VH:

Thursday: (If Islam allowed humor, the Swiss Muslims would have build a mosque in the form of a cuckoo clock: no better symbol of the demographic jihad but that bird) The Brugge Mariastad [“Bruges Maria-city”] committee wants to close down an exhibition that mocks Christianity with great enthusiasm — or at least mocks the relationship between religion and power. The committee takes particular offense at a fairground stall, created by a certain Peter Puype, where visitors may smash plaster statuettes of Mary by throwing stones at them. How the artist will enjoy all the attention! His manifestation of cultural self-hatred is dripping with the adolescent desire to insult the good old little bigots, attached to their comforting and totally harmless Mary-worship, as brutally as possible. It would have been more heroic to manufacture little plaster figures of Muhammad, my dear artist, and have those dashed into to pieces — also not very delicate, but at least you would then be insulting a real enemy, doubling the offense first by depicting the Prophet and then by destroying him. And then the exhibition would have been closed down by the authorities in a blink of an eye, so you would have become a martyr for free speech… and in an unexploded condition!

[The committee eventually decided not to close the exhibition down, which will close anyway as planned today, January 17. — VH]»

In Gates of Vienna.

Ver A coragem do artista dimi.