Sistani: "Sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible"

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi has similar views about murdering gays. he was given the red carpet treatment by Ken Livingstone, mayor of London.

Sistani is clearly a nutter. Here's what his site says about that most evil of pastimes, chess:

"It is not permissible, because it is a means for Lahv (debauchery) and gambling. Many traditions have been reported from the Holy Prophet and the Imams (a.s.) that prohibit playing chess. Moreover, when we do not know the reason behind the forbiddenness of an act, we are bound to obey in absolute obedience. There is a reason for it, but we do not know it and when we do not know it, it does not mean that we should not abide by it."

The world will be relieved to know however:

"Question : What is your ruling about cat's hair on a person's dress during salat?

§ Answer : Cat's hair does not invalidate prayer."

Phew, I was getting worried.

"It [chess] is not permissible, because it is a means for Lahv (debauchery) and gambling..."
- from a posting above quoting Qaradawi

So that's why there's never been a Muslim Capablanca.

But in fact, there is a good young chess player -- first name, Yasser, and one assumes (though one can be wrong) that he is Muslim or calls himself such -- who might be surprised to discover his favorite occupation is haram. The crazed Bobby Fischer, though he and Qaradawi agree on many things, might start to wonder as well.

One more reason for the Iranians (originators of "shakh mat" though chess itself comes from India) to look with disfavor on those who take their Haram-Halal stuff too seriously.

Chess, Qaradawi tells us, is a means for "debauchery and gambling." So true. Whenever one thinks of the fleshpots of the world, those drugs, that liquor, those wild wild women, who does not think, in the same instant, of chess?

Dear Sistani, it appears that you have never ejoyed homosexuality. You may become active/passive partner, depending on your choice. I assure you, Your Emminence, this is more than 72 Houris and pearl like (virgin & adolosent) boys
promised in the next life------ Allah-u-Akbar!

Bruce Bawer makes a simple but significant point about the difference of the attitude of Christian and Muslim "fundamentalists" to gays in his brilliant book "While Europe slept":

"Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me."

Bawer wonders how Europeans can ignore the difference; and ignore it they do. Particularly striking is the pro-Islamic politics of academic "queer" ideologists residing in women's studies, cultural studies and anthropology departments of European as well as American universities. The extreme-left queer folks won't give up the principle "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (that is, Islamics are the enemy of the "neo-cons" and therefore good, period) even if that "friend" would have them hanged if he could.

There goes half of Islam.

Ouch!

Hugh writes:
"But in fact, there is a good young chess player -- first name, Yasser, and one assumes (though one can be wrong) that he is Muslim"

That would be Yasser Seirawan (sp?), 4 time US
chess champion. Not so young (born 1940) and married to the daughter of a former Leefbar
Nederland party president. He was born in Syria
and moved to the US when he was 4.

"Chess, Qaradawi tells us, is a means for "debauchery and gambling." So true. Whenever one thinks of the fleshpots of the world, those drugs, that liquor, those wild wild women, who does not think, in the same instant, of chess? "

I was a chess player in high school, and let me
tell you, the drugs, the wild parties, the
crazed sex, man! I'm glad I got out of that life,
I probably wouldn't be alive today if I hadn't
discovered the clean lifestyle of jazz music,
from my heroes Charlie Parker, Chet Baker, and
Art Pepper. ;-)

More seriously, the problem with chess seems to be more of a Shiite thing, I think. Anyone know
for sure?

Any gay people still think there's hope for peace
with Islam? I'm always amazed when I see gays
demonstrating for "Palestine" and against Israel.
You can suck face with another guy on a street in
Tel Aviv and talk about it the next day. Try that
in Gaza City!

As far as behavior, there is no way, in my mind, to equate Muslim and Christian fundamentalists (or those who claim to follow their book literally).

The Bruce Bawer book sounds interesting. I have read Eurabia, The West's Last Chance and Al Qaeda in Europe. Will have to check it out.

All the best,
Mac

American,

Chess seems to have been one of the pet hates of Mohammad, and according to Islamic scripture, he said that if someone plays chess 'it is as if he has dyed his hand with the blood of swine'.
For this reason, I don't think that it is a particularly Shi'ite dislike.
I'm not sure what he had against chess, there's no element of luck, it's pure skill, so it can't really be classed as a form of gambling. I think that Mohammad was against chess for part of the same reason he was opposed to music and drawing things, that being he wanted his followers to focus on jihad and not be distracted. Also, perhaps it was because he might not have been very good at it.

What exactly does killing someone in the worst manner possible mean?

Someone posted a link here, not too long ago, to one of Ayatollah Khomeini's "works" where he explains that sodomizing a baby (girl) by a Muslim man is halal, as long as he doesn't damage her virginity.

I'm at a loss for words. I'm chocking, and Kant is rolling in his grave.

"Not so young (born 1940).."
-- from a posting above

He is if you're 98.

My apologies, I mistyped, he was born in 1960.
Still an old man to me, but a babe in the
woods to Hugh ;-)

I thought that chess originated in Zoroastrian Persia - they do seem to have modified the rules of the original game in India.

On Chess itself, there has been a long link between genious and insanity in chess. Bobby Fisher's tantrums, whether it was rejoicing at 9/11 or playing in Serbia in violation of (admittedly unjustified) sanctions was one. Charles Krauthammer covered this bizzare connection in a TIME article several months ago

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,1054411,00.html

From the article

But chess has a third--and unique--characteristic that is particularly fatal. It is not just monomaniacal and abstract, but its arena is a playing field on which the other guy really is after you. The essence of the game is constant struggle against an adversary who, by whatever means of deception and disguise, is entirely, relentlessly, unfailingly dedicated to your destruction. It is only a board, but it is a field of dreams for paranoia.

Given that, it's rather strange that Mohammedans should have a major aversion to Chess.

About that disgusting quote about raping babies, I've looked for 100% proof that Khomeini wrote that, because most muslims would presumably deny it. Has someone seen 100% proof of this statement? The anti-Islamist sites that use the quote would probably not be accepted by 'moderate muslims'.

It would be very useful to have this.

I could also not get the English version of the Sistani site search to work - nothing came up. Could someone please post the actual link to the quote (on Sistani's own site, in English) this thread is about, so we can use the first-hand evidence in our arguments?

I think using first-hand muslim quotes is really important, especially in countries where people are immediately called (and even legally charged as) 'islamophobes' for saying anything against islamism.

ovidius_naso referenced "....one of Ayatollah Khomeini's "works" where he explains that sodomizing a baby (girl) by a Muslim man is halal...."

A reference to the fourth volume of Khomeini's Tahrirolvasyleh.

I have doubts about the existence of a 4th volume. I'm not saying that it does or does not exist. I'm just saying that I serious doubts whether even Khomeini would have written such a thing.

Quite. Or even if he did, if we can't prove it, it will be denied.

Isn't Sistani supposed to be a "moderate"? Are there still people promoting Sistani for the Nobel peace prize? That would be the same Nobel peace prize Arafat won.

Elephant -

By cutting off the head - of course!

Re: Sistani: "Sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible"

"We didn't invent the Infidel Internet-or planes, or much else-but that's because we spend so much time planning Jihad in the closet..."

Give piece a chance OBL and Associates...

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rajuabju.com/elat/images/comedy/osama_head.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rajuabju.com/elat/bin_laden_pics.htm&h=425&w=420&sz=18&tbnid=Py0_wSRZ9fbSQM:&tbnh=122&tbnw=120&hl=en&start=7&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dosama%2Bbin%2Bladen.,%2Bdead%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

Are there still people promoting Sistani for the Nobel peace prize?"
-- from a posting above

Tom Friedman promoted with his usual boyish tail-wagging enthusiasm the idea of a Nobel for Sistani (he is an Enthusiast, after all -- that's his profession), but fell silent on the matter after there appeared, at this website, information about the list of what is considered "unclean" (najis) at Sistani's website. At National Review Online, there was a similar proposal; can't remember who made it. At My Weekly Standard, it may have been suggested by a sufferer from Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome. Sistani admirers will have been made uncomfortable by the statement now at his website. Or, at least, one hopes they will.

A clear case of the wonders of the Internet working against those who use it. And there are those who claim that taqqiya is a Shiite art form.

This is from the Sistani site too: "According to Islamic Sharia, eating and drinking liquid in gold and silver dishes is forbidden. It is not so important to know the reason or know not"

The second statement goes far in explaining the aversion to chess. As far as his aversion to gays, the tried and true theory of "hating what one longs for" works for me.

Lili, Click on Hugh's first link for Sistani - then take a look for English -- out of sight out of mind - can't recall exactrly where .. but you should be able to find it easily ..

I visited the Grand Wizard Sistani's site about a year or so ago and now I'm wondering if he hasn't hired a PR firm (same one hired by Hamass??) .. he still looks about as joyful as the Inquisitor he is .. but somehow .. a less ferocious (albeit still dour) looking Inquisitor.
Anyone else see a difference?

This is from the Sistani site too: "According to Islamic Sharia, eating and drinking liquid in gold and silver dishes is forbidden. It is not so important to know the reason or know not"

The second statement goes far in explaining the aversion to chess. As far as his aversion to gays, the tried and true theory of "hating what one longs for" works for me.

Lili, Click on Hugh's first link for Sistani - then take a look for English -- out of sight out of mind - can't recall exactrly where .. but you should be able to find it easily ..

I visited the Grand Wizard Sistani's site about a year or so ago and now I'm wondering if he hasn't hired a PR firm (same one hired by Hamass??) .. he still looks about as joyful as the Inquisitor he is .. but somehow .. a less ferocious (albeit still dour) looking Inquisitor.
Anyone else see a difference?

sorry about the double post .. had to sign in again .. and then was asked to wait ... was a bit confused .. notwithstanding, my apologies

I can find the arab page, what I want is the English page making the statement on Sistami's own site. Irrefutible proof that I can also read. The English part of the site has a search function but it is not responding to my search attempts.

We the politically incorrect about Islam are the ones against Sistani and against his ideas including his determination to kill gays, yet the PC insist on labelling us Homophobes.

Hugh: You haven't a clue mate, don't you know that when unbelievers play that wicked game of chess they are COMPLETELY! naked, some even nude, under their clothing. Makes the flesh crawl eh? Boy I'm gald we have those very educated and decent mad mullahs to keep us in line. num7bat

Homosexuality is rampant here in Saudi Arabia. They especially like young boys. I'm surprised Sistani would call for the death of them...could wipe out half the population...at least of Arabia. It's because the women are so out of reach,they have to look at each other for gratification. Clearly, though, this is frowned upon behavior but not something to warrant killing, unless of course, there is a complaint from an unwilling party.

"Homosexuality is rampant here in Saudi Arabia. They especially like young boys."

As you point out yourself, that is not homosexuality in the gay western understanding of it("It's because the women are so out of reach,they have to look at each other for gratification.").

Sistani is quoted as saying:" killed in the worst manner possible".

I think the point here that we seem to be overlooking is the typical(and perhaps why it was overlooked) Muslim need not only to exact violence, but in its most horrible way.

Once you start to say, or worse, do things like this you should automatically be excluded from the human race and treated like the subhuman that you really are as should anyone who agrees with you.

Maybe we are merely seeing personal repression in action with its expected angle of attack.

Lili, it sounds like the whole lot of them need major psychiatric care but best not to push this as the bleeding hearts will move in and say it is not their fault.

Why would a "Nobel Peace Prize" not be suitable for Sistani? There still seems to be some residual respect for the symbolism of the thing - Any respect I had flew out the window forever when the PLO troll clutched one in his bloody claw... The most absurd thing I have ever seen. (...well Julia Roberts playing a tart in "Pretty Woman" -- OK that was more absurd...)

(can we say "tart"?)

Some Christians aren't too tolerant of homosexuality either: (not sure how to activate the link)

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Yes it's the notorious Reverend Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka Kansas, the same guy who organizes celebratory picketing at funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq.

The difference is that he -- Phelps -- represents a fringe of Christian lunacy, whereas Sistani is squarely at the center, and leadership, of his faith.

Ah, i see that the link was self-activating. Good.

"Moreover, when we do not know the reason behind the forbiddenness of an act, we are bound to obey in absolute obedience." -- Sistani

Scary. Absolutely scary.

Lili wrote:
I think using first-hand muslim quotes is really important, especially in countries where people are immediately called (and even legally charged as) 'islamophobes'
for saying anything against islamism.

Lilly, the truth doesn't really make a difference under the law.
In Denmark, we had a case where a politician, Kaj´Vilhelmsen, was convicted under S.266b of the Penal Code for posting on his website a pampflet called Unmasking Islam.
The pamphflet was essentially a compilation of quotes from authentic Quran and hadith sources with annotations from an infidel's perspective.
The Copenhagen District Court sentenced Vilhelmsen to payment of fines, though modest, had the effect of forcing him to remove the pamphflet from his home page.
Our law forbids the dissemination with view to the public or a greater audience of any communication threatening, insulting or degrading a group of persons on the ground of race, color, faith,ethnic or national origin or sexual orientation (sexual orientation was added in 1987 as part of a equality initiative for homosexuals).
The genesis of the law was a 1939 statute making it a crime to incite hatred against a segment of the population by reason of race or religion within the state by spreading false accusations.
However, in 1971 the limiting formulation requireing the state to prove the falsity of the accusations was removed, and the scope of the law was expressly extended to threatening, insulting or degrading speech regardless of its truth or falsity.
For background on free speech in Denmark read:

Article from The Times of London
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2087469,00.html
The prosecutor's decision not to institute criminal proceedings against Jylland-Posten in English
http://www.rigsadvokaten.dk/ref.aspx?id=890
Kaj Vilhelmsen's website The Joint List Against Immigration (Fælleslisten mod Indvandringen)
http://www.faelleslisten.dk

I wrote:
Kaj Vilhelmsen's website The Joint List Against Immigration (Fælleslisten mod Indvandringen)
http://www.faelleslisten.dk

Please be aware that Kaj Vilhelmsen has a larger, more unpleasant, agenda than his vocal opposition to Muslim immigration.
Being questioned on his discussion forum, he has equivocated on whether he believes the holocaust is a historical fact and has stated that he opposes adoption of children from the third world.
However, his larger agenda should not detract from the outrage to free speech committed against him.
Just a cautionary warning.

I went to the web sites of some French gay associations, you know those associations which are supposed to defend the gay people against oppression.... I wanted to know if they "denounce" Islam as one of those backward religions they hate so much.

I saw some articles against Poland and the Vatican.... "The Catholic Church is still very homophobic", the title read.

But curiously, not a word about the Islamic homophoebia.

I was educated in a Catholic background and I have never felt any homophoebia from the people around me. Never have I been threatened physically for my having affairs with same gender people ! I have never been insulted. Some people have told me they disagreed with homosexuality and I said "oh yes it is interesting, why" and we debated. And it was interesting.

But still, the gay associations strongly denounce the Catholics and they don't even NAME Islam as a possible source of homophoebia.

They sue people (the French right wing MP Christian Vanneste was recently sentenced for his "homophoebic opinions"), destroying what we have most precious = freedom of expression. But Christian Vanneste never said that gay people must die (neither did the Pope). He just expressed his vision of life, that the heterosexual scheme is a good thing and that kids should have a dad and a mum. It is his conception. It is his right to think that a kid should have a mother and a father.

But the gay assocations think that people don't have the right to have their own vision of family.

The French gay association "Act Up" (which is in fact an extreme left association) entered the beautiful Cathedral Notre-Dame de Paris, to celebrate a mock mariage between 2 women. They insulted and molested the priest who had come to them and asked them to be silent and let people pray, and leave.

The media said that it was good and that the Catholics are really, really homophobic !

Act Up never entered the Mosquee of Paris. A little bit scared maybe ?

So much stupididy sometimes makes me hope the West will disappear. But ok, bad thought. I take it back.

"So much stupididy sometimes makes me hope the West will disappear. But ok, bad thought. I take it back."

You can say "I take it back", but you can't. I'm not attacking you, joiesauvage... Your expression reveals a kernel of thought in the West which we must overcome somehow -- Our magnificent system allows free expression and thought -- and inevitably there will be those in such a system that begin to ponder its destruction for various reasons. Some will agree with our enemies that we are decadent. And we are, to be sure to some extent -- but I say "Great" -- it might sometimes be ugly seeing our excesses -- but such are the corollaries of our freedoms -- the freedom to believe stupid things -- to act in certain stupid ways -- to say stupid things... all within the framework of the law... And ours is the best system yet devised to allow the largest number of people to have their say -- attempt to convince others to believe as they do -- to enact, through the mechanisms of pluralist elections and open free debate, laws which then move closer to alternative agendas.

It's a terrible system, until you look at all of the alternatives. Would we want China's totalitarian groupthink? Russia's strongarm tactics? Islam's mindless slavery and lies? The primitive barbarism and corruption of Africa or Central Asia?

The West is the Best... people need to stop believing this is simply jingoistic chauvenism. It's the truth, once one familiarizes himself with all of the alternatives.

There is something very very odd about this.

The Ancient Germans (and probably Celts, too) as readers of Tacitus will know, executed "cowards and sodomites" (Germaina) by putting them face down in a bog, placing a hurdle on top of them and trampling them in. The reason for this seems to have been that they considered such "transgressions" shameful and therefore thought they should be "hidden". A bold bad man, by contrast, was put up high for all to see.

Sistani seems not even to be influenced by a kind of "picture thinking" here, as the ancient tribesmen, according to Tacitus, were. He just wants "the worst manner possible" - i.e., he wants people to suffer. This is very disquieting - sentimental Christian clergy who like to think "all religions are the same" need to start informing themselves and thinking very hard.

Dear JSLA,
I totally agree with everything you say. I was not expressing a political opinion (ie "the stupid people should not have the right to speak") but a personal opinion ("I am sick and tired of stupid people, I wish they could all go to hell"). Freedom of expression is an absolute necessity, and in fact, some people (who think WE are stupid) would really want us to shut up and they wrote laws about that, to prevent people from having opinions they don't share (exemple: prevent people from believing homosexuality is not good for society).
Yes, freedom has an ugly side, it is the fact that anybody can express opinions and some opinions are really ugly ! As is cowardness in the refusal to see the real enemies, cf. the gay associations who never speak about Islam as a homophobic ideology.
Freedom available in the West might lead to its destruction, from within, as the stupid people manage to take power or lead the public opinion. As far as that problem is concerned (and from a strictly personal point of view, I repeat, not a political point of view), I dislike democracy.
I think it is Cocteau, a French author (and a gay man), who wrote "the big problem is that the idiots have started thinking...".
Indeed, the ones who express themselves on TV and the radio everyday are not the most clever ones, or the most informed. The ones who really have things to say are simply ostracised (I'd have a few names to quote, as far as France is concerned). That is the inner ambiguity of freedom, in that it gives "the freedom to speak against freedom" .

May I just add that in a perfect freedom, it should not be a problem. But France is not a free country (I am only talking about France because I know what is happening in France): there is censorship. So the system is not pure. Hence it creates a disbalance and only some opinions are allowed, for instance: Islam is a religion of peace.

If the system was pure, truth and reason would prevail I am sure. But it is not the case. Hence "freedom" (freedom just for a few people) is becoming dangerous.

and I wonder if "freedom only for a few people" is still freedom ?

I am, personally, for a total liberty of speech. Total. But I know people don't agree with that.

It's perhaps understandable to view 'luck' as an heretical mystical force, yet Backgammon is practically Iran's national sport. Would it be Halal to play chess using dice?

I'd like to know Sistani's thoughts regarding Snakes'n'Ladders vs Connect 4.

joiesauvage -- The ugly/beautiful reality is that Humans are both horribly flawed and yet miraculous. I sometimes feel like Dr. Pangloss preaching his metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigological theories to Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh... Might the West be the best of all possible worlds? Perhaps this is as good as it gets?!

I guess times like this sort out the pessimists from the optimists of life. I am a nearly hopeless pessimist, believing as I do that eventually Humans will destroy the Earth and themselves in the process ... But isn't that nature's way too? Isn't it necessary to endlessly invent and endlessly destroy that which was invented to make way for more inventions? I'm agnostic -- can't imagine that we can possibly know God -- or whether there is a God -- the universe is so utterly limitless and beyond our small abilities to comprehend... Yet we can observe certain truths -- there is creation -- there is destruction -- and amidst all of it -- sentient beings (given a gift by God?) to begin to ponder, and perceive it all... It seems miraculous -- and perhaps the best argument I have ever come up with to intuit that there may be some God behind it all --

Anyway -- In being pessimistic I'm also optimistic. In learning about the Myth of Sisyphus, I always had a slightly different take than most others interpreting the myth -- I thought the story was really about the human spirit to keep on trying, not about Sisyphus' doom to forever repeat his efforts unsuccessfully. Perhaps that's partially why the issue of Islam has so suffused my thoughts since 9/11? I cannot believe the hopelessness of the situation, but I can't think of a better way to proceed than to fight fight fight to roll that rock up over the hill. I will do it til the day I day, if I'm lucky! Perhaps I'm not a pessimist after all -- I can never tell.

Today is the 3-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. I had no idea 3 years ago of just how "shocked" and "awed" I would turn out to be. SHOCKED and AWED about Islam, that is, and everything this war has incidentally managed to expose about it.

Re Sistani - the coalition put SO very much hope in Sistani, "the moderate". A year ago it dawned on me though, that Sistani may well be the "Grand Wizard of Taquiyya" instead. He is a Shia after all...

Just spoke to an Iranian friend who says backgammon is in fact haram, because of the dice but also, as Sistani says of chess, because it is gambled upon. Gammon boards are sold in only a few 'craftwork' stores, and the die & chequers have to be bought elsewhere.

Also, in chess the clergy are subordinate to a monarchy.

"I thought the story was really about the human spirit to keep on trying, not about Sisyphus' doom to forever repeat his efforts unsuccessfully".

Isn't it part of the same process ? We make so much effort during our lives, then we die. We build hopes, but we become older and weaker.

All in life is cycles... beginning, growing, decading, ending. Hence it is natural that civilisations also die after having dominated the world. A lot of efforts, and they become old - and weak.

The USA is a bit younger. That is why the USA is our best hope at the moment. I can predict that in a few years, you will have a lof of immigrants escaping Europe and trying to find freedom again in the USA. Maybe I will be part of them, unless I sink with the boat (I am a sentimentalist, you see).

Then one day, the USA also will be too old, and die...

But other civilisations will come, freer, brighter, having learnt from the past.

I am pessimistic as far as the West is concerned, but optimistic as far as Humanity is concerned. We have evolved since we were atomes, micro organisms, shells, fishes, mammals, Homo Erectus with a small brain, Sapiens with a bigger brain... there is no reason we stop.

Going OT but there's an exception to Sharia gaming laws with regards to horse/camel racing - even though the bookie "makes money from money", which itself is un-Islamic, betting on the horses is accepted as it was traditionally used to encourage faster cavalry riders. As ever, what's good for Islam is 'right', what is bad for Islam is 'wrong'.

I can predict that in a few years, you will have a lof of immigrants escaping Europe and trying to find freedom again in the USA.

I've been thinking this a lot lately. There will be more Ilan Halimis across the EU, the authorities and media will fuel tensions with disinformation and vested interests, and the US will look more & more like Zion for infidel refugees.

"In Denmark, we had a case where a politician, Kaj´Vilhelmsen, was convicted under S.266b of the Penal Code for posting on his website a pampflet called Unmasking Islam.
The pamphflet was essentially a compilation of quotes from authentic Quran and hadith sources with annotations from an infidel's perspective.
...
Our law forbids the dissemination with view to the public or a greater audience of any communication threatening, insulting or degrading a group of persons on the ground of race, color, faith,ethnic or national origin or sexual orientation ...

The genesis of the law was a 1939 statute making it a crime to incite hatred against a segment of the population by reason of race or religion within the state by spreading false accusations.
However, in 1971 the limiting formulation requireing the state to prove the falsity of the accusations was removed, and the scope of the law was expressly extended to threatening, insulting or degrading speech regardless of its truth or falsity."

This is one of the most frightening things I have read in the whole matter, unless the conviction was based ONLY on the annotations, which could be proven to be untrue, and not the quotes. Otherwise the freedom of speech is truly GONE in Denmark. Whether the guy has a horrid agenda or not, in a civilised society people should be able to publish the truth, and when he used muslim quotes, obviously that was all he was doing.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/003440.html

In Denmark, we had a case where a politician, Kaj´Vilhelmsen, was convicted under S.266b of the Penal Code for posting on his website a pampflet called Unmasking Islam.
The pamphflet was essentially a compilation of quotes from authentic Quran and hadith sources with annotations from an infidel's perspective.

And therein lies the nut.

Lilly wrote:

This is one of the most frightening things I have read in the whole matter, unless the conviction was based ONLY on the annotations, which could be proven
to be untrue, and not the quotes. Otherwise the freedom of speech is truly GONE in Denmark. Whether the guy has a horrid agenda or not, in a civilised
society people should be able to publish the truth, and when he used muslim quotes, obviously that was all he was doing.

Yes, it is a testimony to the legal state of free speech in Denmark, and Europe for that matter.

But Lilly you are still not getting the point. Whether Vilhelmsen could have established the truth, or whether the court could have ruled the annotations true or false is irrelevant.
In reality we don't know, because the law relieves the government of establishing anythingb but the act of dissemination with view to the public or a greater audience of any communication threatening, insulting or degrading against a group of persons on the enumerated discriminatory grounds.
The reason for the 1971 amendment removing the language requiring proof of falsity was apparently Denmark's ratification of two United Nations Conventions.
The first, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. obligates the state parties to pass racial vilification legislation (though protection of religion is not required).
The second, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states in Article 20
"...Article 20.
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."

The Danish Committee responsible for drafting the new amendment to S.266b observed in its 1969 report (Straffelovrådets betænkning 553/1969 om forbud mod racediskrimination) that the United Nations had intended to relieve both the victims and the state of establishing the falsity of the proscribed utterances. Thus the new amendment had to be extended to speech regardless of its falsity.
It is not simply a technical, though still troubling, reallocation of the evidentiary burden but must be understood in light of the appraisal of the human rights culture responsible for drafting much of the human rights legislation.
Some years ago there was a case in Canada where The
Federal Human Rights Commission denied Ernst Zundel (an unabashed holocaust denier and anti-Semite) the right to present truth as a defense to a charge of communicating "...telephonically or to cause to be so communicated,
repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter
that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis
of a prohibited ground of discrimination."

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/chrc/judgment.html

The important point here is not the hateful or counterfactual value of specific speech ,but the vary broad theories under which people are prosecuted and often convicted.
And When an already broadly worded law conflates physical characteristics such as race and color with vague criteria like religionand lifestyle the nonrecognition of any distinction between truth and falsity poses a larger challenge to those exercising free speech, because prosecutors in concert with courts have greater leeway to convict based on their own sense of the morality of the targeted choice of religion or lifestyle. Attempting anyway to prove what you said was true could actually do more damage to your defense, since the government might simply turn the table, by arguing, and often plausibly so, that the eagerness on your part to present your reality is itself smoking proof of zealotry and from the government's perspective proof of evil intentions.
This is no better than the heresy trials during the inquisition.

Great summation, Peter. But while you say "This is no better than the heresy trials during the inquisition" I say it's far far worse, and far more malignant.

At least during the Inquisition it could be said that a cultural civil war was being waged internally between the forces of barbarism and extemism and the forces of free thought and the beginning of the enlightenment. It was a battle worth waging, and the only hope for the victory of free thought and enlightenment was to have the battle occur. We have successfully succeeded in beating back the forces of the Inquisition, and have reaped the benefits ever since (albeit with some setbacks and skirmishes periodically.)

In the case of Islam's onslaught (Jihad) against the West we see an alien ideology which fully exploits West strengths (our freedoms our property our money our technology) as well as our weaknesses (our blindness towards Islam, our ignorance of their ultimate goals, our internal social and political schisms) in order to annihilate us and insinuate themselves over our dead carcass.

It's no longer an internal affair, Islam's invasion is an unexpected, unprecedented, and unwelcome invasion-- an attack against largely resolved matters in the civilized West. This law, while completely odious to me, would be relatively innocuous if there weren't Muslims present to exploit them to their advantage.

The Inquisition led to the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Jihad offers no similar resolution.

I increasingly believe that the best case we can look forward to is that Islam's Jihad will lead to world war, the unprecedented death of millions upon millions and the eventual victory of the West such as it will be after the horrors..

The worst case would be the current trajectory the world is on: Islam on the ascendancy -- all the rest in their hate filled totalitarian crosshairs -- Our destruction, subjugation, or annihilation are their cherished goals.