Free Speech on Trial – by Robert Spencer


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.”

But Geert Wilders, and all those who stand with him, have a responsibility, too. We have a responsibility to bear witness to the world that the freedom of speech is a cornerstone of any free society, and that once it is gone, there is no defense against tyranny, no safeguard against the encroaching power of a protected class against whom there is no appeal, and from whose rulings there is no dissent. If Geert Wilders is found guilty, tyranny and authoritarianism will have won a huge victory in Europe, and in the world in general.

The stakes are as high as they can possibly be. Geert Wilders must prevail. If he does not, Europe, and America, and the world, are in for a long, dark night.

  • Robert Bernier

    Every American should see this video !

    The ambition of Islam to conquer the world.
    For centuries Islam of the militants have been on the march to conquer the world. We did not notice because we chose not to notice. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1920 by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt and was in deep confrontation with the Egyptian government. The current goals for Islam to achieve global domination for a Muslim Caliphate: a world under strict Islamic “Sharia” law, pulling Muslims back to the 7th Century. Consult :

  • mbplee

    Political Correctness has been the secret weapon of the Islamists for the past 60 years and the West is so gullible they lap it up. Stop and think who benefits most from PC? PC stops all criticism of Islam and that suits Islamists fine.

    Free Speech must of course also carry some responsibilities, like decorum.

  • andyFree

    How can it be OK to be so unpleasant about Islam when our societies defend the reputation of Judaism so aggressively? If Geert Wilders was saying these things about Judaism, he'd be condemned as antisemitic and most likely locked up in Europe.

    In fact, of course, all accusations of blasphemy should be treated with the contempt they deserve. Geert Wilders is a one-track pony and will never be a power in the land, but his message is important and we should defend his freedom to say it.

  • dannyboy56

    andyFree wrote:

    “If Geert Wilders was saying these things about Judaism, he'd be condemned as antisemitic and most likely locked up in Europe.|”

    Because it would a lie. Geert Wilders only report the facts. You don't have to makeup anything about Islamist. They brag about the evil they do.

  • quranist

    The Quran confirms the Torah and Gospel but attacks the Talmud and Trinity:

    Real Islam is only Quran

  • adna

    Sorry, as much as you would want to love Islam and think Allah is a just God, you will be disapointed again and again.

    After a sucide bombing of women,children and innocent men you think islam has nothing to do with this.

    after a Be-heading of an innocent people, you say islam has nothing to do with this.

    after a stoning of a innocent underage girls you say islam has nothing to do with this.

    After a honor killing of mothers and their daughters you say islam has nothing to do with this.

    After old men who are supposed to be loving grandfathers, now marring tender 9 years old, you say islam has nothing to do with this

    and shall I go on, how can you deny all this when it was sanctioned by their own prophet Mohammed. Yes now you think I lie or have taken the koran out of context. Islam is not peaceful and never will be, this is a fact, because at the core of islam is EVIL.

  • facebook-1851920618

    I will keep Mr. Wilders in my prayers!

  • SantiagoMatamoros

    “If Geert Wilders was saying these things about Judaism . . . .”

    . . . he'd be lying.


  • SantiagoMatamoros

    “The Quran confirms the Torah and Gospel but attacks the Talmud and Trinity”

    You can't “confirm Torah and Gospel” by blaspheming YHWH Incarnate, Christ, the Son of God:

    “In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things” (Qur'an 5:17).

  • SantiagoMatamoros

    You can't “confirm Torah and Gospel” by violating all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, claiming “allah made me do it.”

  • SantiagoMatamoros

    “pulling Muslims back to the 7th Century”

    Those who adhere to Muhammad's commands and examples never left it.

  • quranist

    First of all there is no evidence from the Quran to back up anything Robert Spencer says. He himself admits that. But he takes the view point of Sunni Ilam which rely on oral traditions that were compiled centuries after the Quran. It has the same role as the Talmud has on Judaism. Jesus attacked the Talmud in Mark 7 and so did the Quran as I have shown in the link.

    Plus Robert Spencer knows that Western orientalist have never accepted the reliability of the Islamic oral traditions as they see it as a later invention. But Robert Spencer knows it is much easier to attack Islam through hadiths than the Quran. This is because many hadiths were circulated by Muhammad's enemies and many have been plagiarized from Persian and Judaic and Pre Islamic pagan sources. This is well accepted among Western historians. There is no verses in the Quran that calls on anyone to attack others except in self defense. The Quran has over 30 verses that orders the prophet to respect people's freedom when it comes to faith. Only when the pagans decided to try to kill so as to stop the spread of the Quran's influence did the prophet of the Quran fight. Read the verses in chapter 9 yourself and see for yourself. Robert Spencer admitted this in public but he says these verses have been ABROGATED by hadiths. These sects like Sunnis and Shias are political movements from the pagans of Mecca when they converted to Islam. History is clear about that. They then manufactured some oral traditions to create a new Islam that is conformity with the pagan mindset. It has nothing to do with the Quran. Remmeber neither Muhmamad nor any of his companions compiled any text but the Quran.

    Read chapet 9, the chapter often cited with the sword verses, for yourself.

    I am not Sunni or Shia. I am a Quranist.

    As far as Jesus and the Trinity, this is not based on the teachings of the Gospel but was introduced to Christianity in the 3rd century at the council of Nicea. Many times religions go through a manufacturing process as they become popular and the political authorities decided to try to manipulate its influence.

    Quran is peace!

  • SantiagoMatamoros

    How can one be decorous with filth as vile as Muhammad's committing genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, deceit, religious and gender apartheid, and blasphemy, commanding others to do the same, and claiming “allah made me do it”?

  • camainc

    Where in the world are Jews a) publicly stoning adulterers; b) teaching their children how to strap bombs to their bodies and blow up innocent bystanders; c) teaching their women and children how to cut the heads off of unbelievers; d) blowing up buildings, trains, subways, girls schools, public markets, etc.; e) killing their wives and daughters because they brought “dishonor” to the family by getting raped; etc., etc., etc.

    If Jews (or Christians) are doing these sorts of things, in the name of their religion, then Geert would probably be saying the same things about them.

    So, yes, it is OK for Geert to say these things about Islam, because they are TRUE.

  • camainc
  • camainc

    “He himself admits that”


    And if there is no basis in the Quran for violence against infidels, then maybe you should tell that to all of the Islamic leaders around the world who are perpetuating violence in the name of Allah and Mohammed., and who quote from the Quran to back up their actions.

    But of course, you are right and they (the many thousands of them) are all wrong.

  • camainc

    And please, don't start trying to teaching us the Bible and Christian theology – you are obviously just repeating stuff you have heard.

  • quranist

    Alright then. See this lecture wher Robert Spencer admits that the Quran preached tolerance and then he goes and quotes Ibn Kathir and Bukhari and all these Sunni hadithist where he claims these verses were abrogated by hadiths invneted centuries after Muhammad passed away.

    He admits that himslf with Daniel Pipes by his side:

    He hates Islam because of the Trinity and nothing else and he is standing alongside a Pharisee Jew that Jesus condemned.

  • tgbrowning

    I guess the question I have to ask at this point is this — is the Quran perfect and unchanged entirely from when it was first compiled from oral testimony of those who had memorized Mohammad's words?

    Hmm. Problem with that. According to Islamic scholars there were parts of the Quran that were lost when several of these oral guardians of the Quran, were killed during jihad.

    Then there's the absurdity of the Satanic verses which implies to me, any rate, that Mohammad couldn't keep his story straight.

    And to end on a high note, are you aware that parts of the Quran were discovered in Yemen in the last ten years, that differ textually from all four of the accepted versions of the Quran?

    I'll be blunt here. In my opinion, the Quran is a third rate hack job, a mish-mash of Persian, Judaic, Christian, and pagan elements. It also rejects well-established scientific facts and actually maintains that ifrits and djinn exist. I really don't think I
    anyone who believes such things has any business running a business, let alone a country.


  • SantiagoMatamoros


    Judging by the general duplicity and outright, bald-faced lies contained in your comments, you truly live up to your name.

    I'm going to vivisect your mendacity now.

    It won't be over quickly, and you're not going to like it . . .

    QURANIST: “there is no evidence from the Quran to back up anything Robert Spencer says.”

    When Robert Spencer says, “Qur'an 9:5 states 'kill the pagans wherever you find them,” is he telling the truth or not?

    Since the Verse of the Sword states that, it is clear that Qur'an “backs up something Robert Spencer says.”

    QURANIST: “He himself admits that.

    Robert Spencer states that his comments on Qur'anic texts have no basis in Qur'anic texts?

    Shameless liar.

    QURANIST: “he takes the view point of Sunni Ilam which rely on oral traditions that were compiled centuries after the Quran.”

    If you trust the words of Qur'an, compiled not by Muhammad or the first caliphs but by others on the authority of others, then what about the use of ahadith is untenable?

    Regardless, even though non-Sunni might claim they reject ahadith as authoritative, you must use still sources outside of Qur'an in order to make sense of what is — without ahadith and sira — mainly incoherent nonsense.

    And you also rely on extra-Qur'anic documents. Here's how: Since in Qur'an Allah calls Muhammad a “beautiful pattern of conduct” for those who want to please him, and since Qur'an is purported to contain only the words of Allah, you cannot know just what that “beautiful pattern” is without ahadith and sira.

    I doubt Sunni would say they neglect Qur'an.

    QURANIST: “It has the same role as the Talmud has on Judaism. Jesus attacked the Talmud in Mark 7″

    Since you misrepresent Qur'an, can your representation of Christ's words be any less erroneous?

    Jesus did not “attack the Talmud;” He attacked the deceitfulness and hypocrisy of those who knew what God's word said but lied about it anyway.

    Lying about God for one's own personal goals . . . Just like Muhammad.

    QURANIST: “Robert Spencer knows that Western orientalist have never accepted the reliability of the Islamic oral traditions”

    Which bears no relevance to what Spencer reports, since he is not addressing “Western orientalists'” slaughtering, raping, and maiming innocent people, but Muslims who do so.

    Since most Muslims are Sunni (90-95%, depending on whom you ask), it is completely appropriate for him to discuss — and for non-Muslims to know — that no major school of Islamic jurisprudence — Sunni or Shiite — rejects offensive warfare against non-Muslims, murdering apostates, or raping little, prepubescent girls.

    Your straw men are burning.

    QURANIST: “Spencer knows it is much easier to attack Islam through hadiths than the Quran.”


    “fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5).

    “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur'an 9:29).

    “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . ” (Qur'an 5:33).

    [Ibn Kathir says of this verse: “'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.” So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for “disbelief.”]

    And that's just a taste.

    QURANIST: This is because many hadiths were circulated by Muhammad's enemies and many have been plagiarized from Persian and Judaic and Pre Islamic pagan sources.

    That's ridiculous, and here's why: Examples of every category of barbarism, vanity, and utter, vile, filth found in ahadith you'll find in Qur'an.

    Genocide? Got it.

    Pedophilia? Got it.

    Kill apostates? Got that too.

    As for “plagiarism,” yes, Islam is full of plagiarism, though of a special sort.

    Muhammad didn't copy the Biblical texts faithfully. If he had, then Islam might be an actual “religion of peace.”

    No, Muhammad took a few of the Biblical characters' names and then attached them to his blasphemies in order to deceive his Jewish and Christian listeners. (Yes, that was before Muhammad realized that no one would convert to his heresy without a little “persuasion.”

    In other words, Allah's apostle discovered the Islamic truism that “Reason's pleasin' but slayin's payin'.”)

    QURANIST: “There is no verses in the Quran that calls on anyone to attack others except in self defense.

    False. See above.

    QURANIST: “The Quran has over 30 verses that orders the prophet to respect people's freedom when it comes to faith.”


    QURANIST: “Only when the pagans decided to try to kill so as to stop the spread of the Quran's influence did the prophet of the Quran fight.”

    No, the non-Muslims fought in self-defense against Muhammad.

    QURANIST: Read the verses in chapter 9 yourself and see for yourself.”

    That's good advice. You ought to take it.

    QURANIST: Robert Spencer admitted this in public but he says these verses have been ABROGATED by hadiths.”

    Either you're really confused (on a matter this serious, with all the time you've had to discover your errors, it's hard to believe this flat-out falsehood is anything less than intentional deceit) or just a typical, Muhammad-declared-war-is-deceit, lying Muslim.

    Which is it?

    QURANIST: “These sects like Sunnis and Shias are political movements from the pagans of Mecca . . .”

    You must be on everyone's Apostate Hit-list.

    QURANIST: “Remmeber neither Muhmamad nor any of his companions compiled any text but the Quran.”

    Muhammad was an illiterate, genocidal pedophile.

    He compiled nothing but victims.

    QURANIST: “Read chapet 9, the chapter often cited with the sword verses, for yourself.”

    Good advice. You ought to take it.

    QURANIST: “As far as Jesus and the Trinity, this is not based on the teachings of the Gospel but was introduced to Christianity in the 3rd century at the council of Nicea.”

    Demonstrably false.

    Both the Old and New Testament show the Messiah to be GOD Incarnate (see John 8 for an example).

    QURANIST: Many times religions go through a manufacturing process as they become popular and the political authorities decided to try to manipulate its influence.”

    Which is not what happened with Christianity.

    In fact, it wasn't until the Emperor Constantine converted that Christianity became — not “popular” — but “non-fatal.”

    In other words, you can't have Christianity lying about the Trinity to become popular when it already preached the Trinity and suffered terrible persecution for it.

    QURANIST: Quran is peace!

    But Quranist is not truthful.

    (Instead of trying to deceive non-Muslims here, why are you spreading your propaganda at Islamic sites?

    Tell you what: You convince Muslims to stop raping, flaying, and slaying in Allah's name and in accord with Muhammad's example, and the rest of us won't care one little bit about Islam.)


  • baigo

    Thank you Santiagomotomors
    for taking on the taqqiy and outright bullshit of “Quranist” He clearly can't see the evil of the teachings of Qur'an because he's blinded by their darkness.
    Your step by step rejection of his crap is very commendable. You speak for all of us who value the truth over Mohammed's evil creation.

  • ronhenderson

    We cannot at this point of time when Islamic terror is so prevalent be coerced by our own ignorant governments to remain silent in discussion of the terrorism of Islam. To hide our heads in the sand is to allow Islam terror to blow us apart. Is that what the Dutch leaders want? To remain silent in adversity is to abrogate our responsibility to protect citizens from terror.

  • LindaRivera

    Turkey's Prime Minister, Erdogan, publicly read an Islamic poem: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…”
    Is the goal of U.S. and Western leaders that non-Muslims submit to Islam?

    From day one, Obama was eager to communicate to the Muslim global community that pleasing Islam is his top priority.

    Obama's first official phone call was to PLO Muslim leader, Abbas. Immorally respected by past and present U.S. administrations, Muslim terrorist leader Abbas, financed the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games. Obama's first interview was with Al-Arabiya, Muslim TV station.

    Obama Bows low to Saudi King:

    Obama: “My Muslim Faith”

    Obama: Muslim call to prayer one of the Prettiest Sounds on Earth

    The Koran is radically different from the Bible.

    PA Muslims Celebrate Murder of 3,000 Innocents 9/11

    G-D's eternal Biblical requirement for all humanity is kindness: Jewish Bible, Micah 6:8. 'And what does the L-RD require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your G-D.'

    Obama: ” We are no longer a Christian nation . . . “

  • quranist

    There is nothing called Taqiya in the Quran. Thats a shia concept. Plus the pedophilia hadith is taken from the Talmud. The age and wording are very similar. Google it.

    I am very concerned about the taking Quranic verse out of context such as verse 9-5 where the complete verse is not quoted but a partial quote to try to change its meaning. This is unethical. This is what the verse says:

    4. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

    5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

    6. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

    7. How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.

    This is how the verse goes.

    So there is a lot of Taqiya itself being practiced here where people try to fudge the verses of the Quran to try to make it appear what its not. This is unethical and thats the reason why manny Liberals have abandoned the attack Islam crowd because of these practices.

    I also noticed the harsh and accusatory tone some here speak of me for doing nothing but quoting what the Quran says.

    Maybe you should ask yourself why you have these feelings.

    Quran is peace, and the sword verse show it. Remember in the same chapter it gives a reason why these wars broke out and what happened with the pagans and Muhammad in Mecca and they followed him to Medina to try to kill him like the Pharoah did with Moses and the Jews and Romans with Jesus.

    13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

    Here it makes it clear as to what these wars were about.

    As far as Muhammad's job description, the Quran makes that very clear also:

    16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .

    6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

    4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper.”

    88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe

    39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

    42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach

    And also this verse that Robert Spencer quotes in admittance that the Quran preached tolerance:

    109.1-6 Say : O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine

    But then he goes on to say this was only when he was weak but later he abrogated these verses. He then spends the rest of the evening quoting Bukhari and Ibn Kathir.

    One wonders why Robert Spencer only quotes Sunni sectarian sources and not Shias. At least we can say both him and sectarian Islam don't care about the Quran.

    But this fudging of Quranic verses and quoting half a verse and not all of it shows that the intention here is not based on ignorance but deceit. People who have faith in God would not resort to such tactics.

  • LindaRivera

    Anti-Free World Netherlands SHOCKING ATTACK on Western Civilization

    Leaflets were distributed in major British cities which included slogans such as: “The final hour will not come until the Muslims kill the Jews.”

    Britain's response? “police appeared reluctant to prosecute because the calls to fight the Jews were carefully couched in quotes from the Koran.”

    Does Britain believe it's acceptable to call for the Religious Murder of Jews and other innocents because it's in the Koran? In a frightening violation of the Peoples' right to protection, the UK showed respect for the public call to murder non-Muslims because it's in the Koran!

    In Europe & other countries, Muslim mobs shout in our streets: 'Jews to the Ovens', 'All Jews to the Gas`.
    What is the European response to this great evil? They are persecuting innocent Geert Wilders! A frightened European asks: “When can we expect Kristallnacht part 2?”

    Wilders' film, Fitna, is the words of the Koran and Muslims. Why is Geert Wilders being punished for the WORDS of the KORAN and MUSLIMS?

    “the umbrella group for Dutch Muslims said that the film does not insult their religion”

    In prosecuting innocent Geert Wilders, the Netherlands is declaring non-Muslims have no human rights. No right to protest against the violent Islamic written and verbal calls for our murders. The Netherlands betrays all of innocent humanity.

    Sign petition:….

    Protect Wilders/Free World: We must have global street demonstrations for Wilders and FREEDOM!
    PA Muslims CELEBRATE Murder of Americans 9/11

  • LindaRivera

    Muslims say the koran is directly the word of god from heaven.

    Regarding abrogation, the infinitely wise, all-knowing G-D, the Creator, G-D of life, the G-D who is PERFECT WITHOUT ANY MISTAKES, who holds the future, does not change his mind and declare the absolute opposite of what he said earlier.

  • quranist

    The Koran is not radically different from the Bible. The Trinity and the Talmud and the hadith are radical different from the Quran. The Quran and Bible are one.

    Say: “O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord….” (Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 68)

    Let the People of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 47)

    But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Torah before them?- Therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) people of faith. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 43)

    Quran is peace!

    I told ya!

  • stephjoy

    Just as Hitler stormed Europe in the 30's & 40's. the Muslim tide is also spreading , starting in Europe & Africa. Who will be brave enough to stop it? Will America the Home of the Brave be able to rescue Europe this time?
    Same old story…how will it end this time?

  • Don

    Reading to Quranist only confirms that Muslims simply cannot own up to the realities and facts of the religion they follow. You can quote the Qur'an, show them beheadings on tape, have them read fatwas, show them historical fact, lay the numbers in front of them, and yet they never do and never will take responsibility for the actions of this sociopathalogical ideology. These are peoplke who will have an excuse for their co-religionists putting bullets into the backs of children's heads in Breslin. Nothing is ever their own responsibilty – it's everyone elses fault or misinterpretation of Islam. Unbelieveable.

  • facebook-1376318132

    Islam is a totalitarian political doctrine wrapped in religious garb that uses intimidation and violence to squelch opposition. This is about the survival of the West, not about verbal offenses.

  • mbplee

    “Qur'an is Peace” cannot be proven. It is a dissimulation, a disguise, and a deceit.

  • quranist

    Of course the Quran is peace. You know that. But the Trinity have all of you deviated from the straight path. None of you here ever read the Quran but take your understanding from a neocon like Spencer.

    There is nothing called abrogation in the Quran. These are lies made up by the Meccan dynasties who ruled after Muhammad. They wanted to copy the Byzantinian Church and created a theocracy from another source goes the Quran was not for them to manipulate.

    I still ask, why does Robert only rely on Sunni sources and not Shia or Zaydi or Ahmedi or Ismaeli? They all have hadiths that each believe is true and the others have been fabricated.

    Muhammad left nothing but the Quran and the Quran is peace!

    The need of creating some kind of theoretical justification for what so far had been an instinctive reliance on the opinions of the majority, led, from the first decades of the second/eighth century onwards, to the living tradition being retrojected, and to its being ascribed to some of the great hgures of the past. This process, too, began in Kufa, where the stage of doctrine achieved in the time of Hammad b. Abi Sulayman (d. I20/738) was attributed to Ibrahim al-Nakha'i (d. 95-6/7I3-I5). The Medinese followed suit and retrojected their own teaching to a number of ancient authorities who had died about the turn of the century, some of whom later became known as the 'seven jurists of Medina'. At the same time as the doctrine of the school of Kufa was retrospectively attributed to Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, a similar body of doctrine was directly connected with the very beginnings of Islam in Kufa by being attributed to Ibn Mas'ud, a Companion of the Prophet who had come to live in that city, and Ibrahim al-Nakha'i became the main transmitter of that body of doctrine, too. In the same way, other Companions of the Prophet became the eponyms of the schools of Medina and of Mecca. One further step in the search for a solid theoretical foundation of the doctrine of the ancient schools was taken in 'Iraq, very early in the second/eighth century, when the term ' Sunna of the Prophet ' was transferred from its political and theological into a legal context, and identified with the sunna, the ideal practice of the local community and the corresponding doctrine of its scholars. This term, which was taken over by the school of Syria, expressed the axiom that the practice of the Muslims derived from the practice of the Prophet, but it did not as yet imply the existence of positive information in the form of ' Traditions ' (Hadith), that the Prophet by his words or acts had in fact originated or approved any particular practice. It was not long before these Traditions, too, came into existence, and the persons who put them into circulation were the Traditionists.

    Joseph Scahcht on Islamic Law myth.

  • mbplee

    Quranist, you are telling lies, and you know it. You do not know your Quran.

    The Qur’an (القرآن ', literally “the recitation”; also sometimes transliterated as Quran, Qur’ān, Koran, Alcoran or Al-Qur’ān''') is the central religious text of Islam.

    That is the meaning of the word Qur'an.

  • Don

    Quranist: “Qur'an is peace.”

    Tell that to the thousands of people around the world who are butchered every year and hear “Allahu Akbar” as their last words. Thai Buddhists, Filippino Catholics, Hindi and Sikh Indians, Pakistani Christians in Lahore and Multan, Copts in Egypt, apostates in Somolia, Christians throughour central Africa, soldiers in Texas, homosexuals in Iran, women accused of adultry all over the Islamic world, “others” and “unbelievers” or “apostates” almost everywhere else. Thousands…every year…all over the world, Quranist. “Peace” my ass. It's a cult of death and jihad and murder and bigotry and hate and oppression.

    Quranist, you're just a denying, lying, stupid, excuse-making, propogandist blowhard who's not fooling or convincing anyone. When I see Islam ACT like a religion of peace, or when I can find any time in its history when it actually behaved like a religion of peace, I'll listen to your shit with open ears. Until then, prove it.

  • Adheeb

    What Islam hates is 'Truth' and those who support Islam are liars.

  • gcdavis

    Robert Spencer is 100% correct. Unless we in the West arise from our politically correct, multicultural slumbers we will wake up to find ourselves ruled by islamofascist sharia dictatorship.

  • quranist

    You will not do anything but fight the neocons wars. Thats all u guys will do. The neocons now control Washington and Spencer is their propagandist. The neocns are the Talmud following Pharisees.

    Matt 23:25-26 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

    Matt 15:1-3 “Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?”

    Acts 15:10-11 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”

    Matt 23:31-33 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?”

    Spencer is no Christian.

    I noticed a lot of personal attacks on me whenerver I refute anyone here.

    Spencer speaks for SUNNI Islam and not QURANIC Islam.

    And I have shown that.

    The Torah and Gospel and Quran is from God, the Talmud, Trinity and Hadith is from man.

    So who do u trust?

  • Don

    Who cares if Spenser is a Christian? I don't. He knows Islam inside and out, much better than you do. That's what matters. And being NOT a Christyian, don't you find it interesting that he has no probleem with Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Seikhs, or any other peoples or religion – but he DOES have a serious and valid concern about Islam, as almost all non-Muslims do?

    Yes, I hope those “Neo-con wars” come right into your heartland, like the 34 terrorists we killed in Yemen yesterday. We need to keep that up and kill these Islamists psychos wherever we find them. They plan, recruit, fund, train, and execute terror against innocent people. They're evil and are driven by an evil ideology, and thus they need to be found andf killed wherever they are in order to save innocent lives. Got a problem with that? Then look to your religion as the cause of it.

    Too bad, honestly,that we can't just round up all the practicing “good” Muslims, gather them all at Mecca, and put an F'n nuke on the lotof you. Then tell the remaining Islamic horde, “Okay, now reform your religion and change your Qur'an or there will be more of these. The coice is yours.” Every non-Muslim on the planet knows that the world would be a much better place had Mohammed never been born; if there was no Islam in the world.

  • quranist

    Sooner or later the neocons policy of mass immigration will make you and the rest of “conservative” America a minority and you would have to fight wars to save yourself from a civil war catastrophe in America. Ha Ha ha!

    The Neocons as a Hostile Conservative (!) Elite

    January 24,2008

    I haven't read Jacob Heilbrunn's book on the neocons yet, but I'm not sure I need to after seeing Philip Weiss's review. Weiss's review makes it clear that Heilbrunn's book corroborates several of the themes in my writing on the neocons and on Jewish intellectual and political movements generally.

    First, neoconservatism is a Jewish movement. That should have been clear to everyone by now, but references to the Jewish basis of the movement have been noticeably missing from much of the mainstream media, to the point that Bill Kristol was introduced as a columnist at the New York Times as simply a “conservative.” This is critical because the neocons have now become the conservative establishment. When Kristol (or Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity) hold forth at Fox News, most people have no idea that they are tuning into the public face of a fundamentally Jewish movement that elbowed out more traditional conservatives.

    Secondly, Jewish neocons not only have a strong Jewish identity, they also have strong Jewish interests. This is obvious from their involvement in pro-Israel activism, their personal relationships with Israeli leaders, and close ties with other Jews and with the wider Jewish community. In fact, I have argued that the neocons are more strongly identified as Jews than the mainstream liberal/left Jews — that the neocons form the vanguard of the Jewish community. After all, neocons were the first segment of the Jewish community to strongly condemn the USSR, both for its domestic anti-Semitism and for its alliances with Arab governments. Prominent neocons like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz began their political careers by making alliances with Cold War hawks like Henry Jackson This was at a time when the Jewish left was prominently involved in defending the USSR, apparently blind to the fact that the status of Jews as an elite in the USSR had changed greatly following World War II.

    And the neocons are notorious for their strong ties to the most extreme racialist and nationalist segments of Israeli society — elements that the mainstream liberal/left Jewish community probably wishes would disappear or at least be less visible. (Hence the uproar over Christiane Amanpour's God's Jewish Warriors.) Indeed, the Jewish liberal/left has a huge blind spot, continuing to pursue its leftist multicultural agenda in the U.S. while ignoring the fact that the organized Jewish community is deeply complicit in dispossessing the Palestinians and erecting a racialist, apartheid state in Israel. As Weiss has noted elsewhere, “Steve Rabinowitz, Clinton friend, told me this year that if anyone did a study of how much [Democrat] money comes from Jews, it would fuel conspiracy theories.” The Jewish liberal/left lavishly supports Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but makes no attempt to wrest control of the pro-Israel lobby from the hands of what James Petras terms the “reactionary minority of American Jews” who head the major American Jewish organizations.

    But more interestingly, Heilbrunn points to the “lifelong antipathy toward the patrician class among the neocons … [that] prompted them to create their own parallel establishment.” In this regard, the neocons are entirely within the American Jewish mainstream. As I noted in a previous blog (also commenting on Philip Weiss), “Jews have become an elite, but an elite that does not identify with its subjects — a hostile, estranged but very wealthy elite that still sees themselves as outsiders.” And along with the American Jewish mainstream, the neocons have been vital players in the establishment of a variety of policies opposed to the interests and attitudes of the American majority, most egregiously unrestricted immigration which has successfully altered the ethnic composition of the country. Indeed, neoconservative Ben Wattenberg famously wrote that “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”

    This hostility toward the traditional peoples and culture of America among people calling themselves conservatives is striking — the antithesis of normal and natural conservative tendencies. As Sam Francis noted, what the neocons dislike about traditional conservatives is simply that they “are conservative at all”:

    There are countless stories of how neoconservatives have succeeded in entering conservative institutions, forcing out or demoting traditional conservatives, and changing the positions and philosophy of such institutions in neoconservative directions…. Writers like M. E. Bradford, Joseph Sobran, Pat Buchanan, and Russell Kirk, and institutions like Chronicles, the Rockford Institute, the Philadelphia Society, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute have been among the most respected and distinguished names in American conservatism. The dedication of their neoconservative enemies to driving them out of the movement they have taken over and demonizing them as marginal and dangerous figures has no legitimate basis in reality. It is clear evidence of the ulterior aspirations of those behind neoconservatism to dominate and subvert American conservatism from its original purposes and agenda and turn it to other purposes…. What neoconservatives really dislike about their “allies” among traditional conservatives is simply the fact that the conservatives are conservatives at all—that they support “this notion of a Christian civilization,” as Midge Decter put it, that they oppose mass immigration, … that they entertain doubts or strong disagreement over American foreign policy in the Middle East, that they oppose reckless involvement in foreign wars and foreign entanglements, and that, in company with the Founding Fathers of the United States, they reject the concept of a pure democracy and the belief that the United States is or should evolve toward it.

    Francis, S. (2004). The neoconservative subversion. In B. Nelson (ed.), “Neoconservatism.” Occasional Papers of the Conservative Citizens’ Foundation, Issue Number Six, 6–12. St. Louis: Conservative Citizens’ Foundation, p. 9.

    That the New York Times can call Kristol a conservative without shame or irony is a striking commentary on the death of American conservatism.

    There are several other themes highlighted in Weiss's review that are worth mentioning because they are typical of other Jewish intellectual and political movements. Heilbrunn describes neocon “cabals” in the State Department and in academic departments at elite universities. This is a reference to Jewish ethnic networking. In general, all of the important Jewish intellectual and political movements — from psychoanalysis and Boasian anthropology to neoconservatism — have a mutually reinforcing core of Jews centered around charismatic leaders. In the case of the neocons, individuals such as Leo Strauss, Richard Perle, and Norman Podhoretz have played this role. Neoconservative cabals have been largely successful in controlling or at least heavily influencing elite institutions in academia, the government, think tanks, and the media.

    And finally, the neocons are prime examples of another important theme of Jewish intellectual life — self-deception. Weiss writes:

    The reader is left with the shadowy sense that the neocons have a pro-Israel agenda that they are not upfront about. But it isn’t a conspiracy, Heilbrunn warns. The neocons have convinced themselves that the U.S. and Israel have congruent interests. “They just believe this stuff. They’re not agents,” an anonymous source tells him, speaking of Cheney aide David Wurmser, who is married to an Israeli.

    Married to an Israeli. The neocons may believe it, but the rest of us need not be so foolish. For example, Douglas Feith is depicted by Heilbrunn as having published a letter defending the capture of the West Bank while still a teenager. Feith has also been credibly charged with spying for Israel, and was deeply involved in the disinformation used by the U.S. government to justify the invasion of Iraq. He has close ties to the settler movement, and was a participant in the notorious “A Clean Break” paper that advised the Israeli government that removing Saddam Hussein should be an Israeli strategic goal. The authors of this report speak as Jews and Israelis, not as U.S. citizens: “Our claim to the land—to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years—is legitimate and noble.”

    European Americans may have a difficult time processing all of this. Their individualism and their own fragile and beleaguered sense of ethnicity make them less likely to attribute ethnic motives to others. And there is an imposing edifice of taboos surrounding even the mention of Jewish influence, much less anything that hints that Israel is the first loyalty of Jewish neocons — an edifice aggressively maintained by the organized Jewish community. But the rather unpleasant facts are staring European Americans in the face, even if the New York Times insists on calling them conservatives.

    Ha Ha ha!

  • Don

    Just a quick scan of your rediculously long post revealed you for what you really are; I saw the words “Jew” and “Jweeish” all over the place. So myou're disqualified – you don't count. You show yourself to be a typical Muslim blaming Jews and Israeel for eevery thing. I don't waste my time reading a long bunch of BS from a Jew-hating Muslim idiot conspiracy nutjob. Jew this, Jew that. How sad that the rest of us have to share this planet with the likes of you.

  • JLarson ZombiePortraits

    What's so bad about the Religion of Peace?

  • quranist

    Just fight their wars and shut up fool. Ha Ha Ha. Spencer ain't no Christian, hell, he ain't even a conservative. He is a neocon lackey.

  • michael101

    Beheading people in the name of Ala is just plain Hethonistic and Barbaric, is this the Religion you belong to and enjoy….Well you can take your religion and stick it up your A&&, Now how do you like that for a bit of "Free Speech".All of the "Free Speech" will never surpass your use of Beheading and Terrorists killins of unarmed, women, men, children, the infirmed, the sick, the elderly on purpose with malice of forethought in your activities in the name of ALA. Muslims are all members of a very powerful but sick CULT! Their lack of true forgiveness is very apparent. The one thing that seperates a Christian from a Muslim is the act of Forgiveness. Lack of Forgiveness leads to beheadings, and honor killings….and this Islamic religion is Not a CULT? It is the largest CULT in the world and must be dealt with. Do not let these depraved, sick, cultiists take away anyone's Freedom. When you loose it you may never get it back.

  • michael101

    Accepting the responsibility of the Oath I took with joining the US Army,

    would certainly allow me to act in defense of Robert Spencer if he were in the US, I will speak on behalf of every FREE person.. He has God given unalienable rights to “Free Speech” and telling the truth about Islam certainly is in his rights! The First Amendment to the US Constitution allows for Freedom of Speech.

    Remember everyone: You will find it more difficult to ever regain your Liberty and Freedom after it is taken away from you!

    The Muslim's are doing everything they can to use the Rule of Law against those of us who live under the freedoms that are afforded by the “Rule of Law” in the Democracies of the world. The Muslims have their own Religious Based law and it is their law, not the Law of Free men and women. Beware of ther charade! The will disable your democracy and all of your rights if you allow this. We are seeing in in the US every day. Obama, is part of the effort to dilute the unalienable God given rights all Democracies enjoy. Beware of these creatures of the Abyss. Sounds crazy to some of you, but just give it a thought, be on guard, and do not let them deceive you. Islam is a deceitful cult and their use of beheading and honor killings, etc, are indicitive of CULT activities.

  • michael101

    That, My Friend, is the TRUTH..Now come and get me and put me on trial because I have seen Muslims at work doing their CULTISH deeds and they are BAD and they are LIARS! “The Truth shall set your free”, Thank God and Jesus Christ for the truth!

  • michael101

    When you say the Neocons now control Washington, you must be smoking some very good marijuana! Obama and the Socialists, American apolotizers, and Marxists NOW control Washington, I wish it were controlled NOW by Neocons. This will change soon and the American people, at least a new majority have realized their very bad mistake. OneBigAssMistakeAmerica is what OBAMA stands for now. He is a fool, and a buffoon. He will go down as the worst President of the US only Obama is “More Stupid” than Jimmy Carter ever thought about.

  • quranist

    These Muslims aint worry about what u say. The know about ww1 and ww2 and the bolshevik mass murder and they know about vietnam and now iraq. They know ur history so you do the math in terms of killing civilians.

    I don't follow muslim laws i follow the Quran, but what do u know.

  • Don

    What do I know? I know that by virtue of you being a Muslim who follows the laws of the Qur'an you are dangerous. I know that you are mentally hacked by your religion. Your posts confirm that.

  • quranist

    Well since u don't know the difference between “Islam” as its known and the Quran let me then show u and educate those dead brain cells of urs:

    In comparing the teachings of Islam as derived from the Book of God to the practices taught and enforced by the popular Sunni and Shia faiths (1.2 Bn followers), we find that the list is quite extensive, with some of the highlights as follows:

    In Islam, the requirement to be a Muslim is to simply accept and live according to the �Straight Path� (6:151-153), Vs. the Sunni or Shia 5-pillars which come from unauthorized books�

    In Islam, abolishing Slavery is taught to be an act of righteousness (90:12-13), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings which encourages slavery under war�

    In Islam, women are never forbidden from praying or fasting during Menstruation (2:222), nor is there a specific dress code (i.e. the Headscarf) imposed on them beyond modesty, Vs. the Sunni and Shia which teach the undermining of women and forcing them to cover their hair and avoid praying or fasting at certain times…

    In Islam, a man or women may leave a Will, after settlement of debt (4:12), Vs. Sunnis who refuse to accept wills if there are any direct descendants…

    In Islam, Monogamy is the basis for normal relationships, while polygamy is only allowed in cases involving marrying the mothers of orphans under the man�s guardianship (4:3), Vs. Sunnis where a man may be a polygamist simply if he can afford to, and Shia which allow sex for pleasure (Mut�a)…

    In Islam, Divorce is enforceable only after a two-phase period, and it may be made nullified if the couple reconcile before the end of this period (65:1, 65:4), Vs. Sunni teachings that destroy families by allowing a divorce to occur on the spot with no waiting period and no nullification…

    In Islam, Thieves do not have their hands cut-off, but are made to work until they return that which is stolen (12:76), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings which brutally amputate the hands causing disability…

    In Islam, no one is allowed to be killed or Stoned for adultery (24:2), Vs. Sunni and Shia laws of stoning married adulterers to death…

    In Islam, absolute Freedom of Faith is allowed (2:256, 10:99; 18:29; 88:21-22), Vs. Sunni and Shia requiring apostates to be killed and rejecting the practice of other faiths…

    In Islam, people are acknowledged as being diverse and each is to be respected for his/her level of spiritual growth. A Submitter �Muslim� must work to attain the status of Faithful �Mumin� (49:14), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings that all followers of their religion must think, act, and even look the same (cult syndrome)…

    In Islam, War can only be declared in cases of self-defence – no offensives (2:190), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings allowing raids and attacks on any people who are considered non-Muslim by their standards…

    In Islam, Pilgrimage is a centre for gathering of nations and for all to witness the benefits of being together (22:27-28), Vs. Sunni and Shia bringing in polytheistic rituals and superstition (touching of black stone, circling 7 times, etc..)…

    In Islam, a Year is a luni-solar count made of 365-days (17:12, 9:36), with all the seasons fitting-in-place Vs. Sunnis teaching it to be a lunar one based on 354 days which creates confusion of seasons and time�

    In Islam, males and females are not required to be Circumcised (32:7), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings requiring all males to be circumcised and females in some cases…

    In Islam, music, statues, gold and silk are all Lawful(7:32-33, 16:116), Vs. Sunni beliefs forbidding silk & gold for men, and forbidding music & statues for all…

    In Islam, rule of Government is under the constitution of the Qur'an through consultation and free-speech (5:48, 42:38). Vs. Sunni teachings which allow the rise of dictators or monarchs, and Shia teachings which uphold self-appointed religious leaders based on genealogy.

    Koran is peace!

  • Don

    Obviously, from this post and others, your problem is with the Sunni. Take it up with them. MY problem is with Islam – all of it (with exception of the Sufis, whom you, like Sunnis and Wahabbis, probably do not consider Muslims) – and the Qur'an. The rest of the world could give a shit about your beef with the Sunnis or thee Sunnis beef with the Shia or the Wahabbis beef with everyone not Wahabbi. When I was in Kuwait my Sunni friends said some pretty shocking things about the Shia, even laughing that they pissed on the parking lot of a Shia mosque, yet they would kill (literally) any Shia who did the same on one of their mosques. We don't care. Shia, Sunni, Wahabbi, Salafi, whatever…you're all screwy and dangerous.

  • rain boots

    Generally I don’t read article on blogs, however I wish to say that this write-up very compelled me to check out and do it! Your writing taste has been surprised me. Thanks, very nice post.