"According to Wilders, the truth about Islam must be made known, even if it is painful and unpleasant for certain people"

Robert Spencer is approved as a witness in the trial against Geert Wilders just a minute ago: http://nos.nl/nieuws/live/journaal24/

There were an estimated 200 demonstrators it's a lot but if you look at the polls his support should be much higher.
In the end of the day we are at risk of losing our freedom and rights and ending up like Geert Wilders for speaking against Islam.
At times like this i wish we had the right to bear arms.
Because if convicted , it won't stop with Geert Wilders.
These left wing islamophile fascists are ruthless , a chief of police some months ago even spoke publically about "deporting" people who support the PVV to an Island.
Democracy means nothing if people don't stand up for there rights.

I don't think Geert Wilders can lose. If he is convicted, the rage throughout the Netherlands will be palpable, and his party swept to office even if he, himself, is not on the ballot. If he is not convicted, the mere fact of a show-trial (shades of the late 1930s, and the trial, conducted by the likes of Andrey Vyshinsky, of the Old Bolsheviks as "wreckers" and "British agents").

The Dutch Establishment has made a fatal error.

Wilders' tormentors seem to have forgotten JFK's dictum: "When we make peaceful revolution impossible, we make violent revolution inevitable." The same applies, of course to resistance.

Memo to Frankish Infidel: You do have the right to bear arms, your government's abrogation of it notwithstanding. As Thomas Jefferson noted, men "have been endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ..." Arms being necessary to the preservation of your life and your liberty, your right to bear them is just as unalienable.

"....Wilders is also charged with offending a group of people, which relates to his comparison of Islam to Nazism."

I guess Nazis everywhere would be infuriated by the comparison. And rightly so! (lol)

Wilders' tormentors seem to have forgotten JFK's dictum: "When we make peaceful revolution impossible, we make violent revolution inevitable." The same applies, of course to resistance.

Memo to Frankish Infidel: You do have the right to bear arms, your government's abrogation of it notwithstanding. As Thomas Jefferson noted, men "have been endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ..." Arms being necessary to the preservation of your life and your liberty, your right to bear them is just as unalienable.

Yep!

http://newstime.co.nz/2010/the-political-process-against-geert-wilders-will-begin-on-20-january-2010.html
LIVE stream

The liars will try and structure the trial so that the truth is no defense...liars are not interested in the truth, their goal is to silence the truth speaker(s)...They should not be allowed to reach their goal...These liars are everywhere...they exist in every country, every religion, and are involved in every social issue...All liars are humans...
But some liars are worse than other liars...The liars persecuting Geert Wilders are huge liars...
I agree with Hugh (above) that there will be repercussions...
I would hope the people would see the lies, and sweep the liars out of power...possibly electing Geert as the man in charge...Can he run for office from prison?

If they actually silence Geert, There should be laws Passed to stop muslims from demonstrating period. They silence Geert, The people can hang there heads in shame, But we all know this will never happen. They say Geert encites and provokes these people ...I say excellent..Good work. Tell it the way it is. There was nothing false about Fitna, nobody lied to make Islam look bad. These fools just can't handle the truth....Islam a religon based on the ramblings of a pedophile that stumbled out of the desert with sunstroke and was Halucinating...Hmmm

The PVV electorate is fragmented outside of my own family i cannot say who is or isn't a PVV supporter.
No real organisational structures.
They could pick us up one by one.
It's not going to stay with just Geert Wildes if and when he is convicted.
The elite have largely sided with the Islamists as they,like them, are also haters of democracy and individual freedom.

CNN dropped the obligatory "right wing" smears, which is a first when it comes to MSM reporting.

A sign for change?

"The Wilders Trial: Torquemada would be proud"

http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2010/01/the-wilders-trial-torquemada-would-be-proud/

"It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct. What’s relevant is that his observations are illegal."

So, jury nullification isn't a built in safeguard in Dutch jurisprudence?

Had Geert Wilder's been critical of Christianity or Judaism, he would not be in court today no matter how distasteful his comments might have been. Antisemitic and anti-Christian remarks are allowed to openly flourish; why? because they do not demonstrate or pose a threat to free societies. But in contrast to Christianity and Judaism, Islam poses a serious threat to freedom loving Western societies. Islam in fact reflects the antithesis of freedom with its desire for the imposition of sharia law. The court in the Netherlands is playing willfully,blindly, and naively into the hands of Islamic sharia law as it challenges the rights to criticize a religion that is in fact a totalitarian political system.

No doubt Sir Winston Churchill could have easily occupied such a seat in a courtroom with his definition of Muslims in his book "The River wars" had he lived in the era of the perversion of political correction that is slowly eroding the freedom of Western cultures as we knew it, and we are foolishly doing it by our own hand.

Who would be the beneficiary if Geert Wilders is convicted? Islam and Islam alone, the real loser without question would be Western cultures and without a shot fired---THIS IS PART OF THE STEALTH JIHAD and we are the enablers and the enemy of ourselves.

I call as a witness for the defense now Anjem Choudary.

Oh how foolish are what we thought were the defending votaries of Western Cultures.

It is easy for us to imagine the trial of Geert Wilders occuring in a Sharia court in any of the Islamic dictatorships.

It is inconceivable to think of it occurring in the Netherlands.

@duh_swami | January 20, 2010 7:30 AM

"The liars will try and structure the trial so that the truth is no defense.."

You don´t get it. It does not matter whether Wilders statements are true or false. The UN convention to abolish racism from 1966 made that clear. So they don´t have to structure anything.

When Denmark adopted the UN convention in 1971 we had to cange our anti-racism law from 1939 (the oldest in the world). One of the reasons was, that only false accusations were punishable according to our 1939 law.

So truth is no defense. And even if it was you can never prove that general statements about Muslims are true. At most you can prove what the Qur´an says.

A trial like no other anywhere in the world right now. And I believe Hugh is right that Wilders can't lose no matter what happens. If convicted, he becomes a martyr and his popularity in The Netherlands will only grow. If not convicted, he and liberty are vindicated even under Dutch law and the trial itself will put the Dutch Establishment to shame. The elites have overplayed their hand this time. Good.

Can't end here without noting that Geert Wilders should be a hero to all who love freedom and hate tyranny. Patriotic and sensible Dutch should take great pride in the fact that their small country has produced such a giant of a man.

This trial reflects a clash between an incoherently articulated position of liberty (Wilders) and a coherently articulated position of crypto-fascism (the Dutch government).

The problems with Wilders' position can be boiled down to two, closely related.

Firstly:

1) it vacillates between

a) a basis in demonstrating that Islam is unjust and dangerous

b) a basis in standing for the freedom to insult and condemn Islam as an ideology.

The problem is that (b) does not, and should not, depend upon (a): liberty should include the freedom to insult and condemn an ideology, even if you have no proof that it merits such insults and condemnation; and yet Wilders seems to expend most of his rhetorical (and apparently legal) effort pursuing (a) as though (b) depended upon it.

The government prosecutor in the quoted statement "It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct. What’s relevant is that his observations are illegal" has already indicated that the government will pursue (b) disconnected from (a) -- and in most of Europe, and particularly the Netherlands and Germany, (b) has been illegal as a legacy of the post-Holocaust "never again" mantra whenever -- and most acutely when -- the ideology in question pertains to a group of people perceived to be "ethnic" and thus the singular potential victims of "another Holocaust" which perforce entails all the other sins of the White West leading up to it, beginning with the tendentiously putative thought crimes of bigotry and then racism, then leading on to lynching, rounding up, putting in camps, and/or mass deportations, etc.

It is with this last vector of the trial where the second incoherence of Wilders' position becomes most problematic:

2) His position vacillates between

a) limiting his condemnation to an undefined part of Islam (a "radical Islam" distinct from Islam itself) and by implication and by occasional explicit avowal not including Muslims per se

b) implying logically that Islam itself is to be condemned as unjust and dangerous and that therefore all Muslims who practice and support it are also to be condemned as unjust and dangerous.

The Dutch government's position is more coherent, because its basis is that 2(a) leads logically to 2(b). However, the Dutch government's position is also fascistic, in that it seeks to punish legally the broader condemnation of Islam and of Muslims who practice and support it, where in a free state, any individual or group should be able to condemn (and mock and insult) any group they want, with or without proof of their allegations, as long as they are not slandering and/or as long as they do not incite others to physical violence against that group.

The problem here, as I noted above, is not only legal but also sociopolitico-cultural (the two, in any case, are always intertwined):

1) Europe post-Holocaust has specifically erected laws calculated to prevent "another Holocaust"

2) the original Holocaust, and the "other Holocaust" always potentially lurking in the wings, are seen to begin with the condemnation of a People (the Jews) and to slide inexorably from that condemnation to various measures leading to genocide

3) Muslims have become the "New Jews" who must be protected against #2.

Wilders seems to realize all this, which is why he rhetorically stops his logic short of its conclusions, because while he may know there is an ethical distinction between collective measures against Muslims such as deportation, on the one hand, and putting in concentration camps and genocide, on the other hand, he also knows that the Dutch government as a matter of official principle rejects such a distinction and even pushes its point back to what it perceives to be the fount of all potential genocides: the thought crime of bigotry against a People, particularly one perceived to be an Ethnic People. And Wilders seems to realize this, too, and so he carefully dials back his language of condemnation so that its logical implication -- that all Muslims who support and practice Islam are to be condemned (and how many don't? and how would we know for sure they don't?) -- is never affirmed. But logically, there is no basis for Wilders' strategy; and since the Dutch government's case is officially and legally -- and fascistically -- built upon that logic, Wilders in his defense will either have to become coherent -- either way, by going all the way in his condemnation, or by backpedalling to a position that condemns nothing --: or will lose his case.

Modification to my post:

"in a free state, any individual or group should be able to condemn (and mock and insult) any group they want, with or without proof of their allegations, as long as they are not slandering and/or as long as they do not incite others to physical violence against that group."

Firstly, any individual or group should be able to condemn (and mock and insult) any ideology they want.

However, secondly, if said ideology is directly related to various acts that endanger the state and/or citizens of the state (let alone acts of actual violence already being committed against the state and/or citizens of the state), then the case shifts from one of freedom of speech against said ideology, to the freedom to advocate concrete measures to take against those who put into practice and/or support said ideology. Even this latter freedom need not rest on proof that persuades: this latter freedom simply needs to be protected and not punished. For the concrete pragmatism this latter freedom obviously implies, however, proof that persuades will be necessary, and if sufficient proof is not forthcoming, then the offended parties should be able to sue for slander. Whatever this proof entails, it too is liable to the kind of incoherent vacillations which Wilders continues to indulge, whereby he is not being precise about what it is he is condemning, or not being precise about how what it is he is condemning is logically delimited and does not logically lead to a broader condemnation of Islam itself and of all Muslims who practice and/or support it.

I disagree, I think that whether Wilders is acquitted or not, there will be a large backlash against the establishment over ther for this. If he is convicted, I predict that the backlash will be HUGE.

Also expect to see a FLOOD of cases filed by citizens against Islamist for the same thing once the damnable precident is set. If it is.
Just as radical Christians changes sides once the opposition uses their tactics, I figure that the elites will quickely act to protect their posteriors by abolishing the laws that started this mess in the first place...once a few Muslims get charge in open and shut cases.

http://hereticscrusade.blogspot.com

There were 300 people rallying for Geert Wilders in Amsterdam this morning. They can't be ignored, people from all over Europe express their solidarity. Geert Wilders is the modern European hero fighting against evil, like Charles Martell, Jan Sobieski and Winston Churchill. He is standing for all our Western values, G*d bless him and don't let Europe turn into the land of Mordor where the shadows lie.

"Wilders is also charged with offending a group of people, which relates to his comparison of Islam to Nazism."

Actually a prominent Muslim cleric made that assertion back during WW2. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, al-Haj Mohamed Amin al-Hussein, stated, "there are considerable similarities between Islamic principles and National Socialism."

Wilders should use that in his defense.

Never Submit

Hesperado has pointed out that the European ruling elite has enacted its anti-hate laws as a means of preventing "another Holocaust", this time against Moslems. Yet it is these fools and their policies that are actually aiding and abetting the real "next Holocaust" -- that of Moslems against unbelievers. This very real Holocaust is world-wide, and has been underway for some decades now in scores of countries such as Nigeria, Iran, the Sudan, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Thailand. It takes the form of Moslems beating, raping, kidnapping, and murdering non-believers, and destroying their schools and churches. In Europe, it is still in its early stages, but we see its presence in the bombings in London and Madrid, the epidemic of rapes in Sweden and Norway, the killings in the Netherlands, the beatings and muggings in the U.K., and the waves of arson and vandalism in France. It's at a stage equivalent to Nazi Germany in 1934 or 1935, with the storm-troopers beating Jews and smashing their stores; and the schools being taken over to properly indoctrinate youngsters in anti-semitism and hatred.
It took less than ten years for Nazi Germany to "advance" from vandalism and muggings to Auschwitz. At the rate that the European ruling elite is encouraging the growth of Moslem numbers in Europe and the decline of the aboriginal populations, it may not take much longer than that before we see the first mass murders of Europeans.
God grant that this never happens, and that Europeans come to their senses to prevent it.

Since when is putting a religious dogma under the microscope
and highlighting the obvious a crime? Other faith and
political dogmas have been examined and critiqued in the
West in modern times.Are we going back to the time of Michelangelo and Galileo?

When 2 or 3 years ago, the Supreme Court of India passed what I considered to be a patently illegal and unconstitutional order in a specific case, I wrote an article in these columns under the title ‘The darkest day in India’s Legal History’.
I am constrained to use the same words again in respect of a blatantly and patently illegal order recently passed by the Calcutta High Court. It is a matter of national shame for all the Hindu women of India that the Calcutta High Court on 17 December 2009 granted the anticipatory bail plea of a 26-year-old youth from Murshidabad who had been accused of kidnapping and marrying a 15-year-old Hindu minor girl.

One Sairul Sheikh, a resident of Bakultala in Behrampore, has been accused of kidnapping and forcibly marrying a Hindu minor girl called Anita Roy. Anita’s mother Jyotsna had lodged a complaint with Behrampore Police Station that her daughter had been missing since 14 October. On 15 October, she came to know that Sairul Sheikh had ‘kidnapped and married’ her minor daughter.

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High court consisting of Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghosh and Justice S P Talukdar allowed Sheikh’s plea after his lawyers submitted that the marriage was legal under Muslim Personal Law. Holding the marriage to be legal, the Bench Calcutta High Court granted Sheikh’s anticipatory bail application.

Even if Sairul Sheikh had married a minor Muslim girl then he would have been entitled to the full benefit of Muslim Personal Law. But he has no right to impose that Islamic law upon the Hindu men and women of India in general and Hindu minor girls in particular. He cannot claim kidnapping of a Hindu minor girl or rape of a Hindu minor girl as a legitimate ‘minority right’ under the Indian Constitution!!

The Calcutta High Court has given a new and twisted illegal interpretation to Muslim Personal Law. By denying legitimate legal relief to the Hindu minor girl Anita and her mother Jyotsna under The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (Courtesy: Website of Ministry of Women and Child Development, GOI http://wcd.nic.in/cmr1929.htm), the Calcutta High Court has made the Hindus of India stateless non-persons similar to the status of non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia.

I FERVENTLY HOPE THAT MANY HINDU ORGANIZATIONS IN INDIA WOULD FILE AN APPLICATION TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE GENERAL BLANJET ILLEGAL IMPOSITION OF MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW ON THE HINDU CITIZENS OF INDIA.

The standard legal dictum is that no citizen can legally claim ignorance of law as an excuse for violation of laws of the land. What is applicable to an individual is equally applicable to all our Courts of Law as well. In this context let me invite the attention of the Calcutta High Court to the following provisions of The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (19 of 1929):

Section 2 : Definitions — In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:

(a) “Child” means a person who, if a male, has not completed twenty one year of age, and if a female, has not completed eighteen years of age ;

Section 4 : Punishment for male adult above twenty one years of age marrying a child — Whoever, being a male above twenty one years of age, contracts a child marriage shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to three months and shall also be liable to fine.

Sairul Sheikh, the accused in this case as per Muslim Personal Law is patently guilty of blatant violation of Section 4 of The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. Any special Islamic privilege he might have under Muslim Personal Law cannot be invoked under this Act when the offence is committed against a Hindu minor girl.

Moreover, In my opinion, having kidnapped a Hindu minor girl (who has nothing to do with Muslim Personal Law) and forcibly marrying her, Sairul Sheikh has opened himself to the charge of committing the rape of a minor girl under the Indian Penal Code.

Here the words of the great American Chief Justice Felix Frankfurter are very relevant: “Judges as persons or Courts as institutions are entitled to no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or institutions. Just because the holders of judicial office are identified with the interests of Justice they may forget their common human frailties and fallibilities. … Therefore Judges must be kept mindful of their limitations and of their ultimate public responsibility by a vigorous stream of criticism with candour however blunt.”

When I was discussing the kidnapping case of Anita with one of the leading Hindu women social workers of Chennai, she jocularly exclaimed: ‘My way of joking is to tell the brutal and bitter truth about the Hindu women of India today and more particularly Hindu minor girls. The stupid self-absorbed attitude of most Hindu women today seems to be this: “I have had no problems whatsoever so far from the Muslims’.

Jagmohan Singh Khurmi, a fearless writer, has written a brilliant essay titled ‘Islamic Lust for Hindu Women: Psychological Warfare’. Let me quote his hilarious and yet sobering words here: “If these silly Bollywood Hindu filmmakers think that they are actually building “secular bridges” by portraying a Muslim hero riding a Hindu woman, then they are in error. They fail to understand Islamic mindset. Even if you make all the Muslims in India superstars, in Pakistan this will not be accepted as a sign of Hindu benevolence or even a gesture of genuine ‘Congress secularism’ but as an explicit evidence of Hindu inferiority and Islamic superiority! Such is their contempt for all things Hindu.’

One woman journalist TAVLEEN SINGH, known for her pro-Islamic stand and who at times went so far as to even justify Islamic terrorism, once got inside the Islamic house of the fanatic Dar-ul-Uloom at Deoband and for the first time in her life discovered the real nature of Islam for herself! To her horror she found that it was millions of light-years away from the rosy imagery Khushwant Singh and Romila Thapar had taught her for years. After a few minutes Tavleen Singh came out stamping her feet in fury. She was so angry that she wrote her next article under title: ‘If this is what secularism means, give me Hindutva’.
Finally, I cannot help quoting the beautifully apt words of Koenraad Elst: ‘One of the most painful aspects of Muslim demographic warfare is the open attempt by Muslims to grab non-Muslim girls to use them for their own demographic ambitions, meanwhile also inflicting a good dose of humiliation on the accursed kafirs. In Bangladesh and in Muslim-majority areas inside India, this often takes the form of simply kidnapping girls, or of threatening their families to marry them out to Muslims.’

Islam does not separate religion from politics; in fact, the concept of religion in Islam emerged first, the state was 'an after-thought'. The additional Islamic law does not acknowledge 'the independent existence of state, nor is state regarded as a primary condition of human society. It makes the State completely subservient to the religion of the Prophet. According to the Islamic law, the state is only an instrument to serve the creed in the attainment of its objectives or fulfilment of ideals of the muslim brotherhood. The Islamic theory of state was, therefore, based on a three fold idea of one scripture, one sovereign and one nation; scripture was the holy Quran, sovereign was the imam (leader), also called Khalifa (the caliph)- political successor to the Prophet, and nation was the millat-the muslim brotherhood. The basic feature of the state, according to this theory, was its 'indivisibility' in all the three aspects. It contemplated the establishment of a theocratic state based on the Islamic law, and recommended only one sovereign, the caliph, to rule over the whole of the muslim world. The caliph was styled as the amir ul momnin-'the leader of the faithful'; his office was thus a political institution based on Islamic injunctions. The sovereignty resided in the millat which elected their imam or the caliph, and the latter was under religious obligation to implement the Islamic law on and for the benefit of his muslim subjects. The Islamic government was, therefore, one which was composed of the muslims, by the muslims and existed for the happiness and welfare of the muslims alone."
That according to the Islamic belief, Koran ( Quran ) is regarded as a divine book containing the words revealed by prophet Mohammad. The verses of Quran were in relations to the happening taken place during the particular events and the connotation of it has a different and separate back grounds , than the present scenario based upon the logical perceptions and that of intellectual property rights.That in the society, wherein the Rule of Law is supreme, the perceptions of authenticity is based upon the truthfulment of the statements and the orthodox superstitions with the ideological confrontation be wiped out in collaboration with harmony between other sections of the society.That the Muslims in India have seldom invited their own people for the public discussions of their creed in general. The effect of the preaching made by their prophet and most of them have idolized the verses of Quran at par with their religion. The result of such pressure being exerted by vociferous activities upon rest of citizens in case one may convince to have the introspection of the repercussions of such preaching which ultimately lead its followers and act of terrorism.
That such activities have been broadened to include the memberships, support, assistance or furthering the activities of some terrorists' organizations. The raising of funds intended for the purposes of `Terrorist Act' has always provided an enumerable loss to the life and property of the people worshiping the other religion than
Islam. Thus in a secular estate such activities of terror may provide a considerable loss to national assessed by declining in the terrorist participation in promotion of the financial assessed to out nation.
That the petitioner is seeking the direction from the Central Government to declare such preaching of `ZIHAD' for converting out nation as DARUL-E-ISLAM by the recital of verses of Quran as detrimental to the interest of the nation.
That the citizens having following of the other religion of Hinduism, Buddhist and Jainism including Jews, who are regarded to be "infidels" at the hands of "believer" of Quran, have their right to know in respect of their fault being committed by them on account of their non-violent and peaceful a domination of every religion.
Thus there is no moral and spiritual import except by a free and fourth right discussion and the interpretation of verses of Quran in its rights prospectives to the followers of the Islam.
That a citizen who is properly informed regarding the public opinion can only decide in the long run, as to whether the Quran qualifies or not as a religion scripture.
That by the mere reading of a few sayings of Quran – which proclaims " Preach cruelty, incite violence and disturbs" public peace, while verse –17 saying which " Promote on ground of religion, feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities in India". The 31 saying further proclaim, " Insult other religious as also the religious belief of other communities.
That secular pattern in behaviour of Muslim majority in Bangladesh and Pakistan towards the Hindu minority simply demonstrates the cruelty and feelings of hatred amongst the fellow citizens in
keeping with the tenets of Islam.That it is submitted that recent photos of Bangladesh Hindus, who have been systematically uprooted from their ancestral home land, even after India had made great sacrifice for speculating liberation
for Bangladesh are mesirable, which is apparent from perusal of photographs of Mass-killing and gang-rapes conducted in Bangladesh.
The copies of photographs published in ------------ having naked bodies of women lying slaughtered and victims of rape, gang-rapes in the family of the Hindus minority at Bangladesh and the treatment given to the personnel of Border Security Forces are filed herewith as Annexure no.1.
That on one hand the Hindus, Buddhist, Jainism stood for non-violence, truthfulness, non-stealing, chastity and non-covetousness, while the preaching of Quran may puzzle them the adherents of another religion of Islam based upon the cruelty, violence and crime. Thus the concept of secularism as adhered by our nation has become antithesis with the acts of terrorism and recital of preaching from Quran.That there is the recital of the `SURAH & AYATEN', which are reproduced as Annexre No. 1
That it was submitted that communal strife and conflicts in its orthodoxy may be seen at Pakistan whose sizable number of Hindu population has been obliterated through murder or through forcible conversion. However, in the judgement passed by then Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vimal Chandra Basak on 17th May, 1985 had observed that making such order as prayed for would amount to abolition of Muslim religion.
That the problem is now aggravated by the facts that unlike other communities, Muslim are highly orthodox people and follow the sayings of Quran with fanatical zeal as a result of which even the sizable number of Muslim population can never have been peace on the soil of our nation.
That even the Muslim Act founded by Baha'iulah in Iran in 19th Century, whose 1 Millions followers are living in India for
spiritual unity, which is uncomphertable with Quranic preaching has been subjected to verse prosecution and the students have been expelled from school and colleges in Iran. In Shia nation and Sunni nation are themselves indulged in violent conflict resulting in numerous death. Thus a modified version of Surah and Ayat in the preset context of communal harmony is required to be given to its followers if the majority of the citizens are save themselves for the vast communal passions and religion fanaticism.
That section 295-A does penalize any and every act of insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious belief of class of
citizen, which are not perpetrated with deliberate and malicious intention of religious feelings of that class. It was observed by
the Hon'ble Court that in its opinion it cannot be said that Quran offers any insult to any other religion.
That the preamble of our constitution and Article 25 and 26 of our Constitution are providing freedom of conscience.
That the preamble proclaimed India to be secular states. However, it has been wrongly interpreted that offending Surah and Ayate of Quran if being forfeited from its publication and the recital may deprive a section of people of their right of thought expression, belief,
faith and worship, such action would amount to abolition of Muslim religion. This has been a wrong findings which are totally
inconsistent with the offended verses of its Surah and Ayat as reproduced above.That the application of section 153-A is squarely applicable for forfeiture and banning of the offending Surah and Ayat enumerated in the Quran as the same generates disharmony feeling of enmity and hatred and also the ill-will between different religion or community.
That untoward incident has been reported till then for carrying on the mutual enmity, hatred between section of the Muslim minority and Hindu Majority incite violence as main aim and object of Quran.That the petitioner most respectable submits that a lot of the terrorist activities have been sur-phased by the followers of the Islam mainly on account of preaching given in Quran, which has lead to the violence of Bombay Blast case of 1993 by Daud Ibrahim and Saleem, Ankaleshwar Temple blast, Killing the parliamentary attack, 11th September Tower Attack in America, series of bomb blast inside the railways compartments in Mumbai, Sankatmochan Mandir blast and complete elimination of members of other communities for territory
of Jammu and Kashmir and Godara blast are the evidence to demonstrate that the decision given by Justice Basak has not taken any probability of the happening mentioned above and as such the present writ petition requires to look into the facts of mass-acre and atrocities committed upon the innocent Hindu citizens. It is submitted that as the last word of prophet written in Quran the Muslims are not ready even to enter in argument or discussion while on the other hand there has been recent judgement of Supreme Court of Malaysia discouraging the bearing of turban by the students, which was adopted on account of being warn by prophet Mohammad. The true photo copy of the judgement passed by three judges bench of Malaysia Court is being filed herewith as Annexure no. 2 .
That the sources of Islam or Quran and Hadis, called as Sullah, the Quran contains the prophet "rebulation" ., while Hadis are al that prophet Mohammad did or said or enjoyed, forbade or did not forbid approved or dis-approved. The Quran is Hadis-mutawatir i.e. the tradition considered authentic and genuine by all Muslims from beginning. The interpretation used by its followers even in changed context of the present days scientific invention and in the light of 2 nuclear bomb invasions in two other centuries is not correct interpretation, which could have been said to be last word of prophet Mohammad as if prophet Mohammad would have been surviving today he would have not promoted Zihad in way of prayer of Allah, nor " infidel" so called Hindus would have been burned or slaughtered in such a manner as the followers of Islam have started practicing in the name of Quran.That the vary revelation of the word Islam from which the Muslim has been formed, the same drives from " AS-LAM' meaning solution to other and peace. Thus the meaning of infidel does not mean the fellow of other religion, but those who does not believe in any God and have indulged in the ruthless killing of animals and other fellow citizens, the true perceptions of the correct proposition of Surah and Ayat may be understood by healthy discussions in the matter. Thus every Hindu citizen has got the right to know the meaning of the infidel and status of Zimmis on which the Zaziya or capitation tax, was realised by the force of arms during period of slavery under the Mughals sub-ordination,That there is another aspect of the matter regarding the creation of quite painting by M.F. Hussain proclaiming himself to he follower of Islam. In the aforesaid paintings which have published and may be seen by any Hindu citizen, there has been naked goddess Durga and
goddess Saraswati, Lord Rama without his head and naked Goddess Sita sitting on the thee of Raman and also on the tail of Hanuman. Goddess Durgaji has been shown to the in coupling with the tiger, while goddess Parwati is shown in the union with the Elephant, while Lord Shiva is said to have been watching upon them. Can it be assumed that M.F. Hussain is a cynic or infidel, who is suffering from seizophrenia with the sadistic pleasure by assailing the sentiments of Hindu citizen of our country. The naked photographs of our goddess demonstrated in oil painting by M.F. Hussain are filed as Annexure no.2.
That on one hand the Hindu is considered to be tolerant for whom the
misrepresentation is given to be co-ordis by the Muslims, if the Hindus may start their counter aggressism by preparing the
suicidal Bomber upon Zama-Maszid and other mosque, the repercussion may be much serious resulting in the situation of riotes arson and genocide. Thus in order to provide a curve upon such happening judicial review is required to be done regarding the interpretation of offending Surah and offending Ayate of Quran as the same may not be misunderstood by its followers.
That the example of counter aggression has been seen at Iraq wherein Saddam has been executed by the American in his own country. It is submitted that there may be vested interest of other nations who remained opportunist to rule India on the policy of divide and rule amongst its citizens. Thus the ------given by Britishers for interpreting the Surah and Ayate of Quran is neither beneficial for our nation, nor the same is beneficial for Pakistan and Bangladesh to demonstrate their displeasure on the question of revaluation of truth amongst our fellow citizens.
That it has been brought to the notice of the Most of citizens that N.D.P.S. is used for providing the illusionary atmosphere of Zannat for preparing suicide bombers. It has been found that the individual under going through brain-drain through such illusionary perception was smiling just before few seconds of the blast. Thus the conclusion is in-escapable that the preaching of Quran to its followers by some time generate themselves the illusionary perceptions of providing the attainment to the heaven if they voluntary sacrifice their life in the name of Zihad as Allah ordered them for killng of infidels. Thus the judicial activism is required to be done for positive interpretation of such recital, otherwise slaughtering and thereby plundering of innocent people may lead to the counter aggression, which is not congenial for the development
of a Nation.
That in this manner Quran may never be regarded as the holy book, nor the Muslim religion based upon misconception of Zihad and Darul-E-Islam may never be able to get the generation in the mind of Hindus. The slogan of secularism and Sarvadharm Sambhawa, it is submitted that the individual Afzal who attached upon the Parliament has yet not been hanged under the guise of getting the protection as a repercussion of such hanging may not lead to the mob violence, which was seen during the period, when the cartoon of Mohammad was made in the remote country at Denmark.
That it is true that Hindus have fought Muslim invaders, who had locally established the Muslim dynasties. However our previous rulers have neglected to study the religious and ideological motives of such invaders and speculation remained unmindful of new phenomenon in their midst. Thus scullery dissertation of disciples of great learning may demonstrate the awareness--- ----
That the problem of Muslim fanatics who are the followers of offending Surah and Ayate of Quran by generating the concept of
Zihad and Darul-e-Islam is further magnified from the event of having the parliament attack. It is submitted that on one hand there is psychological fear generated in the mind of people from such attack and Godhara killing, but when in retaliation of act of terrorism, the counter aggressism was adopted by Hindu citizens in State of Gujrat then the entire word including appeasement policy of Government could not muster the courage of depreciating the Godhara killing, but the retrial after the acquittal of innocent citizens was further ordered to have been taken place in different State of Maharastra. In the course of the Moplah riot of 1921 anything was practised from arson to conversion to pregnant women being cut into pieces with unborn babies protruding from the mothers' corpses. Smt Annie Besant, the Irish lady, and the 1913 president of the Congress, after her
visit to Malabar, exhorted Gandhiji to see for himself the ghastly horrors. Since 9/11, Islamic terrorists have perpetrated any numbers of blasts and explosions. On record since October 2001 are 13 bomb blasts in the different cities of India from New Delhi in the north,
to Bangalore in the south, to Gandhinagar in the west to Guwahati in the east. The terrorists could well be misguided youth but what is particularly disturbing is that hardly ever does a responsible Muslim leader condemn the barbaric action. Nor does he apologize for any of
them. For the people of India, that is rubbing salt by the Muslim elite on the wounds inflicted by their misguided fellow religionists.
A time has come when the major crimes of Islamists are enumerated and Muslim leaders are confronted with them along with a demand for their apology. There are nine mega crimes for which apologies are called for.
The governments in India have taken the boycott of vande mataram lightly although, in effect, the Muslims refusing to participate is an insult to the nation. Vande mataram was the song of the Independence movement and would have been the national anthem but for Jawaharlal
Nehru's weakness for Muslim prejudices, Jana gana mana was therefore chosen although it was originally written as a tribute to King George V.
Over the decades, Hindu Muslim riots were mostly started by the latter. If this were not so, why have there not been Hindu Christian riots even in districts where the latter are dominant as in Nagarcoil? Until the political advent of the British, the communal equation was
so loaded that the Muslims felt secure. Once the Muslims were also reduced to subject status, their insecurity began the corollary of which were riots. In the course of the Moplah riot of 1921 anything was practiced from arson to conversion to pregnant women being cut into pieces with unborn babies protruding from the mothers' corpses. Smt Annie Besant, the Irish lady and the 1913 president of the Congress, after her visit to Malabar, exhorted Gandhiji to see for
himself the ghastly horrors, which had been created by his beloved brothers, Mohammad and Shaukat Ali.
The success of an Islamic expedition to non-Muslim land was also judged on the basis of the number of slaves made and sold. But for the late Dr K.S. Lal who wrote his magnum opus Legacy of Muslim Rule in
India and Muslim Slave System in Medieval India, this aspect of Muslim atrocity might have been completely forgotten. It began with the despatch of Parimal Devi and Suraj Devi, the two daughters of Raja Dahir to the harem of the Caliph, soon after he was defeated by Muhammad bin Qasim in 712 D. This was carried forward by Muhammad Ghauri, Khilji and Tughlaq. Even Emperor Jehangir traded in this
export business. The imposition of jazia on the Hindus on the excuse of protecting
their life and property is legendary. The object of protection was called a zimmi. The subject was dealt at length by Dr P. Saran in his book Studies in Medieval Indian History whose introduction was written by Prof. Mohammad Habib. The purpose of jazia was three fold: to raise money for the state, to impoverish the Hindu and to remind him that he was an inferior subject.
London could not persuade either the Congress Party or the Muslim League to accept the 1946 Cabinet Mission plan of a loose federation to be created in the wake of the British departure from India. It was equally clear that the Muslim League could not dominate the all India political scene, nor could Mohammed Ali Jinnah be the prime minister of an undivided India. If therefore, he had to be the head of the government or the state; Partition of the country was essential. The surest way to precipitate Partition, in the wisdom of the League led by Jinnah, was to engineer riots. They would frighten the Hindus into realising that it would be wise of them to let go the Muslim League dominated areas into Pakistan. The riots would demonstrate to the British that the Hindus and the Muslims were incompatible co-citizens. They had to be allowed to go their separate ways.
The Muslim League Supreme Council met in Bombay and on July 29 declared for "Direct Action", August 16 was fixed as the day for the initiation of the movement. Fiery speeches containing thinly veiled threats of Civil War and drastic action against "Quislings" followed. The League Press and the League spokesmen started a tirade against the Congress in particular and Hindus in general in Calcutta, the League papers started stepping up their programme of incitement causing great apprehension amongst all national circles. The uneasy dawn of the 16th found large bands of "processionists" armed with long sticks, iron rods, bludgeons and sharp weapons parading the city all over with League flags. Any shop that was even partially open was immediately stoned and the shopkeepers belabored. Vehicular traffic was forcibly stopped and the passengers beaten up. Sikh taxi-drivers were a special target and even lone cyclists did not escape. Any resistance merely increased the fury of the "peaceful rocessionists," looted shops, cracked heads and stab-wounds being the reply given to protests or remonstrance's. Police were significantly inactive; indeed the city was totally innocent of police protection.
Soon the city was ablaze from North to South and from East to West.The telephone wires were jammed with frantic appeals for police-aid from Hindus of all sections of the city, but these appeals were disregarded in toto. Even where by chance there were some police, they seldom did lift a finger, excepting in certain instances where they bestirred themselves in gleaning some loot. In some cases the police present are alleged to have said that they had orders not to interfere in such political demonstrations.
Mass butchery started with the early dawn of Saturday, while loot and arson spread like wild fire all over the city. The police had let the situation deteriorate till it was completely out of control and yet military aid was not called for. The carnage continued for two more days until the military took matters entirely into their own hands and very large forces were employed in penetrating deep over a widespread area. The situation was brought under control only after the direction and control of affairs relating to law and order had virtually passed out of the hands of the League Minister-in-charge of Law and Order, Mr. H.S. Suhrawardy, and his henchmen in officialdom.
Iconoclasm is a face of barbarism in the name of God. Which divine likes or dislikes icons or idols is a matter of opinion based on imagination or inculcation. But one thing is certain, for anyone to impose one opinion or the other is inhuman. My God is supreme as the Ten Commandments ordain in the Old Testament. My God is the only god and there can be no other god, the holy Quran contends. Both are
wrong. Simply because there flourished civilizations for long before the holy Bible was penned and well before Prophet Muhammad had his visions, which means that either there are other Gods or there is no god.
God or no god, it is desirable for men and women to switch off from the material and to pray or meditate about the spiritual. To enable ordinary people to focus on the spiritual, it is useful to provide icons, idols or walls. A Hindu idol, a Parsee fire, a crucifix over an altar for the Christian or a mimbar for the Muslim are helpful. For a mimbar to claim that it is sacred but an idol is profane deserving to
be destroyed, is patently wrong. Similarly for an Imam to feel fulfilled because a temple or a church has been desecrated is reprehensible. For him to worship in a mandir so converted to a masjid is more immoral.
Ignorant scholars often dismiss iconoclasm as being medieval; no point in wasting discussion on what happened centuries ago. If that be so,what is the need for pursuit of history which is always about
centuries past. Medieval history is not myth. Iconoclasm is equally contemporary. A Buddha statue was destroyed at Swat in Pakistan as recently as September 2007 (red letters). The tragic fate of the
Bamiyan Buddhas as late as 2001 is well known. The 20th century especially in its latter half has witnessed hundreds of desecrations.Unless the perpetrators are punished or retaliatory action taken, this barbarism will continue to prevail.
The biggest on going crime is terrorism. Since October 2001, post 9/11, there have been 13 major bomb blasts in India which have butchered hundreds of innocent people, women, children, ordinary citizens et al. The officially reported figures are low because they are announced soon after the incident and can only be based on dead bodies found. Those that are not recorded are not taken into account.What is shameful is that the acts of terrorism are seldom condemned by Muslim leaders probably because they are looked upon as episodes in jihad. How can anything sacred be condemned?