Not only is the Left at war with reality, but it demands that people who are still sane accept its fantasies, on pain of pecuniary or other punishment. Jihad terrorists are indeed all Muslim and believe that they are serving Allah. So what exactly did Sebastian Tynkkynen say that was wrong? Nothing, but his statement contradicted the Left’s narrative, and so he must be brought to heel.
“Finnish lawmaker receives 2nd verdict for ethnic agitation: reports,” Xinhua, October 11, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
HELSINKI, Oct. 10 (Xinhua) — The Oulu District Court of Finland on Thursday sentenced Sebastian Tynkkynen, a member of the Finnish Parliament, to pay a 50-day fine, about 4,050 euros, for anti-Muslim agitation, Finish media reported.
The verdict applied to the text and images shared by Tynkkynen from the populist Finns Party in his Facebook account in 2016. Tynkkynen, aged 30, posted pictures of alleged perpetrators of terrorist attacks and stated in the title that “they have one thing in common: they all serve Allah.”
According to the verdict, Tynkkynen’s viewpoint of the Islamic group was a “deliberate, racist and disparaging” hate speech, which was generally directed at all Muslims, and likely to incite contempt and even hatred based on religious intolerance toward the Islamic group.
Therefore, the district court ordered Tynkkynen to remove the posts from social media and pay the fine.
This was not the first verdict Tynkkynen received. He was convicted of ethnic agitation against Muslims and sentenced a 50-day fine in January 2017 for another posting which claimed “the less Muslims in Finland, the safer.”…
Battle says
The prosecution and the judge are lying.
mortimer says
The court is trying to limit the freedom of expression in the criticism of a dangerous terrorist ideology.
IF WE MAY NOT CRITICIZE A TERRORIST IDEOLOGY WE ARE IDEOLOGICALLY DISARMED AGAINST THAT AGGRESSIVE IDEOLOGY.
All the military might in the world is not enough to fight an aggressive ideology. We must be able to fight ISLAMISM *IDEOLOGICALLY* by engaging in OPEN DEBATE about the merits or the errors of that IDEOLOGY.
Islamism is the doctrine of POLITICAL ISLAM which claims that Muslims should fight against disbelieving non-Muslims and militarily subjugate them under discriminatory Sharia law.
None of the above implies a ‘racial’ comment, since an IDEOLOGY CANNOT BY DEFINITION BE a *RACE*, since an ideology is a purely intellectual product.
-Maajid Nawaj (a former Islamist) declared that Islam is “”the desire to impose any given interpretation of Islam on society”.
-the Associate Press defined Islamism as the “political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam”.
Since ISLAMISM Is a political movement involving governance, to criticize ISLAMISM is a matter of political science and not a form of racism.
Barb says
Totally agree with you!
How can criticism of Islam be racist when it is not?
It’d be like saying to criticize Catholicism, Atheism, Christianity, Communism is being racist!
Geoffrey S says
The judge is at fault here! Until we as lever leaded thinking people start pushing back on this insanity, the fascists will continue to push their lies and feel embolden doing so! Call on the judge to account!
william carr says
Imagine if in 1939 nobody was allowed to say anything derogatory about the Nazis or the Japanese
mortimer says
What jihadists all have in common: The Koran’s 164 Jihad Verses:
K 002:178-179, 190-191, 193-194, 216-218, 244; 003:121-126, 140-143, 146, 152-158, 165-167,169, 172-173, 195; 004:071-072, 074-077, 084, 089-091, 094-095,100-104; 005:033, 035, 082; 008:001, 005, 007, 009-010, 012, 015-017, 039-048,057-060, 065-075; 009:005, 012-014, 016, 019-020, 024-026, 029,036, 038-039, 041, 044, 052, 073, 081, 083,086, 088, 092, 111, 120, 122-123; 016:110; 022:039, 058, 078; 024:053, 055; 025:052; 029:006, 069; 033:015, 018, 020, 023, 025-027, 050; 042:039; 047:004, 020, 035; 048:015-024; 049:015; 059:002, 005-008, 014; 060:009; 061:004, 011, 013; 063:004; 064:014; 066:009; 073:020; 076:008.
mortimer says
NOTE TO THE CONVICTING JUDGE: Logical argument: The 164 jihad commandments in the Koran are the ipsissima verba of Allah. Since the Words of Allah are ETERNAL and PERFECT, they share the divine attribute of ETERNITY and PERFECTION and thus they are part of Allah himself.
So to say is that the jihadists have the 164 Koranic jihad commandments in common is similar to saying they all have ALLAH in common. The two statements are logical deductions of what the Koran says about itself.
Is the court at war with logic?
mortimer says
Addendum: there is no racial implication in the above argument, so the defendant is not making a racial statement, but a textually-deduced logical statement.
Ray says
Precisely,it was a political ruling by a judge. The statement was merely a statement of fact. It’s also why judges always make things worse when they deny the right to reality.
mortimer says
THE DUTY OF JIHAD RESTS UPON ALL MUSLIMS of ALL ISLAMIC SCHOOLS
Sources:
First, from the Reliance of the Traveller
“Jihad is a communal obligation.” (o9.1)
“The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians… until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” (o9.8)
“The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim.” (o9.9)
An explanatory note by Sheikh Barakat makes this explicit. It states that jihad is a communal obligation EVEN WHEN non-Muslims “are in their own countries”; i.e., when they are not invading a Muslim country (09.1).
Here is a view from the Maliki School (Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani [d. 966]):
“Jihad is a precept of DIVINE INSTITUTION. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis… maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them. The jizya can only be accepted from them if they occupy a territory where our laws can be enforced. If they are out of our reach, the jizya cannot be accepted from them unless they come within our territory. Otherwise we will make war against them.”
And from the Hanbali School (Ibn Taymiyya, fourteenth-century Hanbali jurist):
“In ordering jihad Allah has said: “FIGHT THEM (q-t-l = fight to the death) until there is no persecution and religion becomes Allah’s” [2:189]….
Allah has, in fact, repeated this obligation [to fight] and has glorified jihad in most of the Medina suras: he has stigmatized those who neglected to do so, and treated them as hypocrites and cowards….
It is impossible to count the number of times when jihad and its virtues are extolled in the Book and the Sunna. Jihad is the best form of voluntary service that man consecrates to Allah….
Therefore, since jihad is divinely instituted, and its goal is that religion reverts in its entirety to Allah and to make Allah’s word triumph, whoever opposes the realization of this goal will be fought, according to the unanimous opinion of Muslims.
Jews and Christians, as well as Zoroastrians (Magians), must be fought until they embrace Islam or pay the jizya without recriminations. (Islamic) Jurists do not agree on the question of knowing if the jizya should be imposed on other categories of infidels; on the other hand, all consider that it should not be required of Arabs [hence they should convert to Islam or be killed or expelled].”
From the respected fourteenth-century Islamic historian Ibn Khaldun:
“In the Muslim community, the HOLY WAR IS A RELIGIOUS DUTY, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.”
OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF JIHAD FROM Kingdom of Saudi Arabia:
“Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the UTMOST IMPORTANCE IN ISLAM AND IS ONE OF ITS PILLARS. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.” – footnotes on p.39, ‘The Noble Koran’, published by King Fahd Complex for Publication of the Quran, Madinah, KSA.
They can only convict Sebastian Tynkkynen by ignoring the above A-1 Islamic authorities.
Beneath the Veil of Consciousness says
This begs the question, why should the truth agitate muslims? Perhaps Islam and the truth cannot coexist.
m says
Response to BVC: Islam is an obscurantist, authoritarian system that is incompatible with independent, critical thinking.
Obscurantism: the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known or a policy of opposing the spread of knowledge or of withholding knowledge from the public.
underbed cat says
Learn new word fits perfectly. Religious hate speech laws for one peculiar type of religion is obscurantism.
mortimer says
Rowan Atkinson M.Sc. (aka Mr Bean) on the legitimate criticism of Islam.
“What is wrong with inciting intense dislike of a religion if the activities or teachings of that religion are so outrageous, irrational or abusive of human rights that it DESERVES to be intensely disliked?”
– Rowan Atkinson speaking before the House of Lords concerning the criticism of Islam
Posted by ‘Atheist’
“I think nothing at all is wrong inciting intense dislike of a religion when that religion becomes abusive of human rights. Once a religion starts abusing human rights through its teachings or otherwise it must be stopped, we can’t afford to let any religion take away our basic rights. The moment any religion does, its actions begin to fall out of the field of protection afforded by any bill of rights including freedom of religion, as they in fact become a threat to the rights of others, and the belief that this is permissible or allowable must be eradicated.”
tim gallagher says
Thanks for that quote, mortimer. Not that it matters what entertainment types think or say (any more than anyone else) but Atkinson is spot on. It is interesting to see anyone from the entertainment crowd who doesn’t just go along with the leftie PC same old, same old crap. Atkinson must be a sensible and courageous person. But why, oh why don’t almost all people, by now, after all the Muslim terrorist attacks and other barbarities, feel this way? Islam does “DESERVE” to be intensely disliked”. Islam has well and truly earned any intense dislike it receives.
Walter Sieruk says
This man was fined for making clear the truth , that all those dangerous and murderous jihadists do ,in fact , “have one thing common :they :they all serve Allah .”
For the god of Islam likes it when non-Muslims [Kafirs] die . About the god of Islam ,the television Imam Suliman Satari said “Annihilate the Infidels… Allah count them and kill them, to the last one and don’t leave even one.” Furthermore Imam Abu Hamza Al-Masri said “What makes Allah happy? Allah is happy when Kafiers get killed. [1]
. The above words of these Imams reflect the example of Islam’s prophet and the teachings of the Quran. “Muhammad now fell upon them [the Jews] slew all the men, nine hundred of them…”[2]
Moreover, the Quran reads “When ye encounter the unbelievers strike off their heads, until ye have made great slaughter among them. Verily if Allah pleased, He could take vengeance on them without your assistance, but He commandeth you to fight His Battles.” 47:4
In short, these Imams and their murderous prophet with their bloody Quran show the world what Islam really is. After all, Jesus did teach “by their fruits you will know them.” Matthew 7:20. [NKJV]
[1] The disc documentary OBSESSION: RADICAL ISLAM’s AGAINST THE WEST
[2] THE OUTLINE OF HISTORY: THE WHOLE STORY OF MAN by H.G. Wells
DHazard says
I’m trying to understand the court’s “thought process”. It most likely started with the assumption that Islam and the terrorism done in it’s name have NOTHING to do with each other, and NEVER do or will. From this we discover that, at least on the surface, a majority of Finns hate themselves and want to die. Making this exercise in self destruction legal and proper we have a government entity called the Oulu District Court of Finland, a court with very selective case of judicial amnesia. This is not a just little forgetfulness, it is the abandonment of the courts fundamental responsibility, amounting to a 180 degree turn from sanity into a future bleaker than Ramadan in winter. Imagine that future, with Muslims in patrol cars driving around Oulu or Helsinki around Christmas time, or sitting at their monitors linked up to every camera in Finland. And then imagine them being divinely petty and writing up fines for anything haram, plus fines to settle their personal grievances. Now imagine that they are feeling extra mean and decide to fine someone for doing pretty much nothing at all. Now imagine it’s not the future and the only thing different about your prophecy is that your own government has assumed the role of protector of Islam. Then you ask yourself, is democracy worth it? Why am I still playing by the rules? Who put Muslims in charge?
mortimer says
The court has taken the stand that criticism ISLAMISM (a political ideology) is a form of racism. However, the error is the ISLAMISM is indeed a mental, intellectual product. All ideologies should be debatable on their merits in a free society. Otherwise, there can be discussion of any ideas, no democracy and society reverts to authoritarianism in which only the governments ideas are permitted.
mortimer says
Response to the judge: If we are not permitted to criticize a political ideology, we are being forced to submit to it.
Rufolino says
“If you tolerate the intolerant, intolerance will win. And then there will be no more tolerance.”
Karl Popper.
Charles Lutz says
“submit” to Islam ? That is precisely what the “judge” has in mind !
Savvy Kafir says
We’re definitely not supposed to notice that common trait. And sure as hell not supposed to mention it if we do.
It really is alarming how quickly free speech has been eroded in just the last 10-20 years. And Muslims (and their PC allies in the Regressive Left) are responsible for the lion’s share of that damage.
Muslims should all be deported to Muslim-majority countries — along with anyone who thinks Islam & its devotees should not be criticized. I don’t believe in Hell, but that fate would be close enough to suit me.
gravenimage says
Finland: Politician fined $4500 for noting that jihad terrorists “have one thing in common: they all serve Allah”
……………..
Penalized for telling the truth–just appalling.
And it is, of course, not just Finland where this is happening. Here is another story from today:
“France: Journalist who found that Paris jihadi was convert to Islam sanctioned for saying it could be jihad attack”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/10/france-journalist-who-found-that-paris-jihadi-was-convert-to-islam-sanctioned-for-saying-it-could-be-jihad-attack#comment-2160215
Lydia Church says
In that case, my statement of the day will be:
Jihad terrorists “have one thing in common: they all serve Allah”!
: D
And if they want to bring race in, when it has no place, does that make all the koran’s verses about attacking non muslims ‘racist’? Or is that just another one of those double standards that works only in one way; in their favor?
mortimer says
What makes Islamic terrorism above criticism?
underbed cat says
Ignorance.
Angemon says
This makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, it is the truth. Second, islam is not a race. Third, he was specific: he restricted himself to perpetrators of terror attacks. One would only assume it was “generally directed at all muslims” if under the impression that jihad terrorists are, in fact, acting upon islamic tenets and are thus mainstream and not a “tiny minority of extremists”. Fourth, where’s the “hate speech”? Fifth, “likely to incite contempt”? How likely, and who judges that likelihood? Sixth, “hatred based on religious intolerance”? Only makes sense if one assumes jihad terrorists are, in fact, acting upon islamic tenets and are thus mainstream and not a “tiny minority of extremists”
gravenimage says
Yes–Islam is not a race or ethnicity.
John Sandhofner says
There was nothing in that statement that was false. So it is now possible to face criminal prosecution (in Finland anyway) for speaking the truth. That will be America if the liberals ever get hold of the WH and Congress. There rewrite of America will totally bury the founding principles this country was founded upon. It is up to clear thinking Americans to put down this socialist takeover and make sure it stays gone forever.
Old Fat Bald Socially Inept Ron says
Finland,
stick a fork in her,
and tell the fat lady to start singing.
Jayell says
Jihad terrorists “have one thing in common: they all serve Allah”……
‘Jihad’ is by definition a ‘holy struggle’ in the cause of islam, therefore any terrorist who can be shown to indulging themselves in their pastime as part of an ‘islamic holy struggle’ must ipso facto be doing so to serve Allah. So what’s the problem there, or should the Finnish authorities be on some sort of medication? You might as lock someone up for asserting that Queen Elizabeth II of the UK is a woman, or that the Atlantic Ocean is wet, or that the Pope is a Roman Catholic. (Perhaps that last one’s a bit debatable!)
AP says
Let the people of Finland know who ruled on this and they will know their enemy.
BlueBoomer says
Yeah, but muslim is not a race, so how can it be racist? One of the many problems with the leftists is that they are purely emotional and logic is not allowed or tolerated. In fact nothing that they don’t like at any given moment is tolerated. Is that not the definition of fascism?
Tattooed Man77 says
Jihadis and “moderates” all fawn after that 600AD warlord with his 6 year old wife.
I always find it fascinating how the MSM never find it necessary to divulge this information to the “sheeple”?
Ole Pederson says
Opening your eyes and see: racist.
Naming the obvious: racist.
Using your brain: racist.
Telling the truth: racist.
Demanding law applying to everybody and refusing extra-special rights for Muslims: racist.
There is no chance of survival for Western civilization unless Islam gets the same public reputation as National socialism or communism.
J D S says
If one replaces the word allah with satan…one has the answer!!!!! In Muslim beliefs allah may mean a god but not THE GOD.
Darryl Kerney says
Anti- muslim agitation ?
The left seems intent on reviving the type of laws the Soviet Union had, like Article 58-10, under which any anti-soviet agitation landed many people in gulag. Apparently those who don’t sympathize with islam are becoming the new kulaks…..needing to be liquidated.
Joel Yliluoma says
The irony is especially thick here because literally at the same time as this case was in session, in the adjacent room was a case concerning an assault and battery by a Muhammed.