Story of Mohammed Islam Unveiled

More documents

Recommendations

Info

22 Free Speech Today Free speech is a bedrock principle of free societies everywhere. It is no coincidence that nations which have historically protected free speech are nations such as the UK, USA, most of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. Those which restrict free speech include the likes of Burma, North Korea, China, Russia, and all of the Islamic countries including Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, etc. Western nations have protected free speech since before most of us were born. Many, if not most people seem to think that they always will. These people haven’t been paying attention, so please sit up because this is where things start to get scary. 57 majority Islamic Nations form an organization called the Organization of Islamic Cooperation or OIC. This is the largest voting bloc in the United Nations, and for years it has been working to persuade UN member countries to ban criticism of religions (specifically Islam). Recently these efforts seem to have been bearing fruit. When I grew up, people understood that you couldn’t call the police just because someone offended you. In fact, it was considered childish to be overly concerned with insults. In recent years however, a combination of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness has been steadily eroding this freedom. Today, people who speak out against Islam are likely to find themselves in court, fighting for their freedom, or even in jail. In Denmark, the president of the “Danish Free Press Society”, Lars Hedegaard was forced to appeal a conviction for “Hate Speech”. Here are some highlights from an article posted at the Gatestone Institute 22 (emphasis mine) Editor's note: On April 13[2012], Lars Hedegaard, President of the Danish Free Press Society, appealed to Denmark's Supreme Court to overturn his conviction by Denmark's Superior Court on May 3, 2011, after two years in lower courts, on charges of alleged Hate Speech. Under Denmark's Article 266(b), it is immaterial if what one .says is true; evidence in support of the truth is inadmissible. All that matters is if someone has said something in public that might cause someone to "feel offended," or if the prosecutor thinks someone might be justified in "feeling offended." After Mr. Hedegaard spoke privately about the Muslim treatment of women, a tape of his remarks was disseminated, apparently without his knowledge or approval. The accuracy of what he said was not in dispute. A verdict is expected this week. The following is an edited transcript of his courtroom defence: If our Western freedom means anything at all, we must insist that every grown-up person is responsible for his or her beliefs, opinions, culture, habits and actions. We enjoy political freedom and we enjoy freedom of religion. This implies a largely unlimited right to disseminate one's political persuasion and religious beliefs. That is as it should be. But the price we all have to pay for this freedom is that others have a right to criticise our politics, our religion and our culture. 22 http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3011/hate-speech-charges 52
Islamic spokesmen have the freedom to advocate their concept of society, which implies the introduction of a theocracy governed by God-given laws, i.e. Sharia, the abolition of man-made laws and by implication freedom of expression and democracy. They are free to think that women are inferior to men as concerns their rights and their pursuit of happiness. They are even entitled to disseminate such opinions. I cannot recall a single instance in this country where an Islamic spokesman has been prosecuted for saying that, of course, Sharia will become the law of the land once the demographic and political realities make it possible. This despite the fact that we have several examples of, e.g., imams who have openly declared that the imposition of theocracy is a religious duty incumbent on all believers. In return, these theocrats and Sharia-advocates must accept the right of those who believe in democracy, free institutions and human equality to criticise Islam and to oppose its dissemination and the atavistic cultural norms practiced by some Muslims. It is this right – I would even say duty – to describe, criticise and oppose a totalitarian ideology that I have tried to exercise to the best of my ability. My speech and my writings have had no other purpose than to alert my fellow citizens to the danger inherent in the Islamic concept of the state and the law. I have made no secret of the fact that I consider this fight for our liberties to be the most important political struggle of our time. I would not be able to live with my guilty conscience if – out of fear of public condemnation and ridicule – I refrained from telling the truth as I see it. And regardless of the outcome of this trial, I intend to continue my struggle for free speech and against totalitarian concepts of any stripe. Meanwhile, round the corner in super tolerant Holland, Geert Wilders of the Freedom Party (now one of the most popular parties the country) was being tried for insulting Islam. The case proceeded even though the prosecution did not want it to (surely a first in Western legal history). Here are some highlights from Geert’s defence (Geert was thrown out of the UK before he could speak there, for posing a “threat to community harmony”). Mister President, members of the Court, I am here because of what I have said. I am here for having spoken. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak. Many have kept silent, but not Pim Fortuyn, not Theo Van Gogh, [both were murdered in Holland for criticizing Islam] and not I. I am obliged to speak, for the Netherlands is under threat of Islam. As I have argued many times, Islam is chiefly an ideology; an ideology of hatred, of destruction, of conquest. It is my strong conviction that Islam is a threat to Western values, to freedom of speech, to the equality of men and women, of heterosexuals and homosexuals, of believers and unbelievers. All over the world we can see how freedom is fleeing from Islam. Day by day we see our freedoms dwindle. Islam is opposed to freedom. Renowned scholars of Islam from all parts of the world agree on this. My witness experts subscribe to my view. There are more Islamic scholars whom the court did not allow me to call upon to testify. All agree with my statements, they show that I speak the truth. That truth is on trial today. We must live in the truth, said the dissidents under Communist rule, because the truth will set us free. Truth and freedom are inextricably connected. We must speak the truth because otherwise we shall lose our freedom. That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak. The statements for which I am being tried are statements which I made in my function as a politician participating in the public debate in our society. My statements were not aimed at individuals, but at Islam and the process of Islamization. That is why the Public Prosecutor has concluded that I should be acquitted. Mister President, members of the Court, I am acting within a long tradition which I wish to honour. I am risking my life in defence of freedom in the Netherlands. Of all our achievements freedom is the most precious and 53
Page 1 and 2:
This book is dedicated to all the p
Page 3 and 4:
Contents 1 Early Life..............
Page 5 and 6:
Introduction Why would a non-Muslim
Page 7 and 8: 1 Early Life (If you think this boo
Page 9 and 10: 2 Islam is Founded When he was arou
Page 11 and 12: 3 Islam Grows Mohammed stayed in Me
Page 13 and 14: 4 Emigration to Medina Once a year,
Page 15 and 16: 5 Sharia Law and the Koran of Medin
Page 17 and 18: translated many times and these tra
Page 19 and 20: to me while I was playing in a swin
Page 21 and 22: 2) In Islamic societies, a family
Page 23 and 24: 7 Jihad Begins Having gained effect
Page 25 and 26: 2) Never abide by any rules or limi
Page 27 and 28: they made him return to unbelief af
Page 29 and 30: Author’s Comments: Although the p
Page 31 and 32: preached some tolerance and non-vio
Page 33 and 34: live in England. All of his loyalti
Page 35 and 36: Author’s Comments: It is a core b
Page 37 and 38: 12 The Battle of Uhud After the Bat
Page 39 and 40: 13 The Second Tribe of Jews The sec
Page 41 and 42: The Koran makes mention of this eve
Page 43 and 44: Muslims believe that there is no Go
Page 45 and 46: From The Sira: I747 The Meccans sen
Page 47 and 48: From The Sira: I764 The Jews of Kha
Page 49 and 50: For example, in 2006, the Pope gave
Page 51 and 52: would they be expecting in return?
Page 53 and 54: 20 War Treasure I770 A Meccan named
Page 55 and 56: From “The Australian” Newspaper
Page 57: There are of course some well under
Page 61 and 62: So, here are a few points from thes
Page 63 and 64: capital offense until a few years a
Page 65 and 66: you with a grievous penalty, and He
Page 67 and 68: Government Although in theory we be
Page 69 and 70: In tribal conflicts in particular,
Page 71 and 72: Opposition to FGM focuses on human
Page 73 and 74: 27 More Suicidal Jihad B4,52,65 A m
Page 75 and 76: 28 A Muslim’s Story It is difficu
Page 77 and 78: At the age of 28, my niece committe
Page 79 and 80: 29 From Mohammed to the Modern Day
Page 81 and 82: Between about 1000 and 1300AD the E
Page 83 and 84: instead set about utilizing the oth
Page 85 and 86: 31 The Project The Muslim Brotherho
Page 87 and 88: 19) Inflaming violence and keeping
Page 89 and 90: 32 Mohammed; the Final Instalment M
Page 91 and 92: If you disagree with what I’ve wr
Page 93 and 94: 33 How to Explain Islam to People
Page 95 and 96: Glossary of Islamic Terms Abrogatio
Page 97 and 98: More Information Act for Australia
Page 99 and 100: 1389 http://1389blog.com Sheikyerma
Page 101: I hope to encourage readers to thin
show all

Story of Mohammed Islam Unveiled

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?