So, was steht an?

Wie immer muss ich die Kinder um 15.30 Uhr an der Bushaltestelle abholen. Danach mache ich die Hausaufgaben mit ihnen und mache noch eine Kleinigkeit zu essen. Auf jeden Fall gibt es immer Obst, wenn wir was im Hause haben. Um 18 Uhr kommen beide Elternteile auch schon nach Hause und das ist auch gut so, da ich mich fertig machen muss für eine Veranstaltung im Goethe Institut. Ich schaue mir eine Deutschland-Reise der etwas anderen Art mit einem der bekanntesten niederländischsprachigen Autoren Belgiens an. Geert van Istendael hat sich nicht nur als Romanschriftsteller, Dichter und Journalist, sondern auch als Übersetzer großer deutscher Autoren wie Goethe, Heine oder Brecht, einen Namen gemacht. Sowas lass ich mir nicht entgehen. Er ist persönlich da. Er beschreibt seine Beziehung zu Deutschland als
eine ganz besondere Art und Weise, die geprägt ist, von umfassender Kenntnis und unübersehbarer Sympathie. Zum Ende seiner Vorstellung konnte man sich sein Buch kaufen, auf Deutsch oder Niederländisch. Das Niederländisch war natürlich umpfangreicher, da man nicht alles Wort für Wort übersetzen konnte. Außerdem bestand noch die Möglichkeit, sich ein persönliches Autogramm zu holen. Getränke waren natürlich auf der Veranstaltung gratis.

[gallery]

Das blaue ist das Deutsche, was ich mir auch gekauft habe und das rechte mit dem

Brandenburger Tor ist die niederländische Ausgabe.

Als alles vorbei war,machten wir uns auf den Weg (Jan, Benni, Gertjan und ich) zum deutschen Stammtisch, um dort noch ein wenig zu plaudern und etwas zu trinken. Dort lernte ich dann Nina aus Neumünster kennen, die auch als Au-Pair hier ist und dann am späten Abendnoch Eric. Er studiert Sprachwissenschaften an der Uni Heidelberg. Er kann bis jetzt 6 Fremdsprachen!!! Bis jetzt.... Das ist aber viel!!! Mal so nebenbei..

Im EU-Parlament gibt es einen Dolmetscher der genau 12 Sprachen kann. Das ist eine Menge oder??? Der Typ hat bestimmt nicht viel zu tun und hat einfach Langeweile (sagt Verena immer). Tschüss

By Sami Zaatari

Indeed we now live in an age where Islam is being continuously and viciously attacked from all sides. The attacks now range from everything we Muslims believe in, from the Noble Quran, to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and to the Islamic law.

So what should the Muslim do in the face of such assaults and attacks against the true and mighty religion of Islam? Well for starters we should remain calm, and not give in to the provocations because that is one of the intended goals of these people. They want the Muslims to become very angry and do something foolish; therefore we should not give into this and must remain calm at all times. Let your rationality overcome your anger.

As the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught us Muslims:

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger."

So a Muslim should always keep his anger in check. I know it is hard, but when we become angry we lose our senses and this makes us unfit to defend Islam as we are not thinking properly.

So what should we do in the face of such attacks against our religion? The answer is extremely logical; we must study our religion so that we will be able to defend it. How can we defend our religion when we do not even know much about it? Thus, if Muslims want to do something about it then they should start learning about their faith.

So the answer in such times is not anger, it is wisdom. It is not shouting and burning things down. Truth will always crush the falsehood and lies, as the Quran says:

017.081
YUSUFALI: And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

021.018
YUSUFALI: Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).

So all we need is the truth and we do have the truth. All we must do is reveal the truth against the lies and the lies shall crumble and fall apart.

These points are crucial for a Muslim to understand because if there is no wisdom in defending the religion, then the religion shall never be defended and the lies shall continue to be spread against the true religion of Islam.

The goal of this booklet is to apply the correct method of responding against falsehood, and that is by employing the truth. As many of you might know, one of the most recent attacks against Islam was the new documentary titled ?Fitna'. The documentary's goal was to try and show that the Quran is an evil and fascist book and that the Quran is a book that incites violence and terrorism. The maker of the documentary was a right wing Dutch MP named Geert Wilders.

What we shall do in this booklet is bring up the verses he produced in his documentary and examine the verses in light of their textual and historical context. We do this for the sake of Allah in order to defend His noble religion and His noble speech, which is the Quran. We are also doing this for the Muslims so that they shall be equipped with the truth and knowledge to respond to such claims in the future. I hope you all shall find this work beneficial and helpful.

We will separate this booklet into 5 parts, for the 5 verses he has brought up.

Surah Al-Anfal Verse 60

The first verse that Wilders produced in his documentary was that of Surah 8, which is titled Surah Al-Anfal, verse 60. The verse reads like this:

008.060
YUSUFALI: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

So from this verse Geert wants to assert that the Quran advocates violence and terrorism against the non-Muslims. As the verse says, the Muslims should prepare our strength and power so we can fight against the enemies, as well as casting terror in their hearts.

Without a doubt when one reads this verse by itself it can paint the picture that Geert is trying to assert. Yet, as we all know this is not how it works in the field of literature and understanding the content of a book. In the field of literature or in any other field when one wants to examine a statement one must be aware of the statement's CONTEXT.  One cannot simply choose one statement and verse while ignoring the rest. In fact this form of argumentation being used by Geert, which is taking a verse out of its proper context is very unscholarly and cheap. It is amazing that this man is a member of the parliament! You would think a member of the government would adhere to the proper scholarly principals of argumentation, yet Geert completely ignores this basic rule.

So let us now quote the verse in its proper context, so the reader will get the true meaning of what the passage is actually saying:

60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.61 But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).

So notice what verse 61 says right after verse 60, verse 61 tells the Muslims that if the enemies want to make peace, then we Muslims should make peace as well. How could Geert intentionally leave this verse out? How can those who support Geert have the audacity to say he is a great man and a hero?

We are still not done with the context, let us now quote the verses that come before verse 60 so the entire context of this situation can be known, and made clear to the reader. So here is verse 60 put in its proper context:

They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah..  If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse, with them, those who follow them, that they may remember.  If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous.  Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them).  Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.  But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah. for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (56-61)

So here is the proper context starting from verse 56. As you can see the context first starts with mentioning the non-Muslims who BREAK their covenants, which they have made with the Muslims and fighting breaks out as a result of this. The context of the verse continues to verses 59-60, which is warning the non-believers to not attempt to INSTIGATE against the Muslims and then it commands the Muslims to make themselves ready for such treacherous people. Then we get to the ending of the context with verse 61, which tells the Muslims that if these people want to eventually make peace then we Muslims should also make peace.

As you can see there is nothing within this context that advocates violence nor terrorism, Wilders has unscholarly twisted a verse out of its proper and clear context to paint a very false picture. The verses are all about wars in which the Muslims are on the DEFENSIVE reacting against an enemy who instigates and begins the war.

Now that we have seen the context of the passages, what about the historical context? Well the 8^th Surah of the Quran (Al-Anfal) was revealed during a time in which the Muslims began to fight back against the Pagans of Makkah. This was a period of war and the meaning of Al-Anfal itself means the spoils of war.

Now why is its historical context important? The historical context of this Surah is extremely important because one must know what was happening around the Prophet (peace be upon him) at the time. By knowing such things it allows for a better evaluation of the verses in question. As we said, the historical context of this time was a time of war between the Muslims and the Pagans. It was a war in which the Pagans had instigated and the Muslims were now finally fighting back. By not giving the historical context of the verses Wilders yet again twists the verse completely out of its proper usage and meaning.

So let us summarize what we have so far:

- Surah Al-Anfal was revealed during a time of war between the Muslims and the Pagans

- It was a war in which the Muslims were fighting back against Pagan oppression and attacks.

- The Muslims were ordered to prepare themselves against non-Muslims who seek to instigate a war against the Muslims

- If the non-Muslims who instigated the war wanted to make peace, then the Muslims were to accept it and make peace as well

So the case is closed. There is nothing within these verses that advocate any violence or terrorism. Wilders should be ashamed of himself for intentionally twisting the Quran to give a false image and for this he is a liar because no one could possibly do what he did when they read the context of these passages.

Wilders knew exactly what he was doing. It was calculated and precise. It was meant to deceive his people and the non-Muslims who have no knowledge of Islam or the Quran. He was simply playing on their fears and he knew that all he had to do was quote verse 60 all alone and he would manage to dupe them into believing his false arguments.

So that is one down, four more to go.

Surah An-Nisa Verse 56

The next passage Wilders brings up is from the 4^th Surah of the Quran, verse 56.

Let us now quote the verse that Wilders has brought up, which is verse 56, and it reads:

56. Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

I really fail to see the argument here. The verse is clear; if you reject the signs of God, and remain a disbeliever then the hell-fire awaits for you. This is the sad truth, however you must accept the truth of God and His prophets if you want salvation and to be safe in the Hereafter.

I don't see why non-Muslims are complaining, the Quran is WARNING the disbelievers about the consequences that awaits them in the Hereafter. The Quran is warning them so they make the right choice and come to Islam and be saved in the Hereafter.

As the Quran says:

25. But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever).

This is from Surah Al-Baqara, which is the 2^nd Surah of the Quran, verse 25. As you can see Allah tells mankind that those who believe and work righteous deeds will be saved and that they will be granted paradise.

Allah has told you to come to Islam, therefore why do you complain when Allah warns you of punishments? If someone warns you of a punishment and a way to avoid that punishment for something much better would you not listen to the advice so you can avoid the harm? Off course you would, therefore if non-Muslims have a problem with Surah 4 verse 56 then they should become believers and become saved and have the glad tidings of Surah 2 verse 25!

As the Quran says in Surah 2 verses 38-39:

We said: "Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from me, whosoever follows My guidance, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.  "But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein."

As you can see Allah tells us to follow His guidance and then we shall be saved, but He gives us a warning that if we do not follow His guidance then there is a harsh punishment awaiting us.

There is nothing hateful with Surah 4 verse 56, it is the harsh reality. On the contrary, it indicates a message of love. If Allah did not love that His creation earns eternal salvation then why would He warn them?

Now having said that how does Surah 4 verse 56 advocate violence or terrorism? Is Wilders trying to say that the verse is what Muslims will do to non-believers? We will quote the verse again:

56. Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

Is Wilders trying to say that the word ?We', which is mentioned here is referring to the Muslims? That it is the Muslims who will do such a thing?

For starters incase he is arguing that then I have a simple question for Geert, unless Muslims are so advanced in skin operations then how in the world is it possible for us to burn someone completely and then replace his skin with a new set of skin?! Secondly, I challenge Wilders to bring up one case in Islamic history where Muslims have burned people and then replaced the burnt skin with new skin.

The ?We' who is referred to in this verse is referring to Allah, to God, it is He who will burn the disbelievers in the Hereafter and it is He who will replace the skin with new skin. He is our Creator and the All Powerful and that shouldn't be difficult for Him.

Now there are some people who will say why does Allah say "we"? Is Allah made up of more than one persons or is Allah referring to Himself and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or is Allah referring to Himself and the angels?

It is neither of the above. The "we" that Allah uses is His way of signifying His Majesty and this is something for very common in languages including English. Often times you will even hear the queen of England referring to herself as WE. It is a very common usage of language, which is used by royalty and leaders.

Furthermore, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbade that someone be burnt as a punishment:

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

Narrated `Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Before this order was issued, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did initially order that specific individuals be burnt as a punishment. However, it is totally prohibited now. Also, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) did initially apply this punishment it wouldn't have anything to do with Surah 4:56, since he obviously did not have the ability to reattach the skins of those being punished and having them burnt over again.

Now what makes this more interesting is that the Bible teaches that disbelievers will go to hell as well, so why doesn't Wilders argue against that? And why do the Christian fans of Wilders have no problems with the Bible condemning people to hell, but have a problem with the Quran when it does so? Here is the Bible condemning people to the hellfire:

¹¹ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.  ¹² And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.  ¹³ And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.  ¹⁴ And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.  ¹⁵ And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelations 20:11-15)

So as you can see non-believers according to the Bible will be thrown into the lake of fire. So if the Quran is evil for such a teaching, then so is the Bible and every Christian fan of Wilders must now disregard their Bible or show the world that they are hypocrites preaching from two mouths.

Surah Muhammad verse 4

The third verse that Geert cites in his bankrupt documentary comes from the 47^th chapter of the Noble Quran, Surah Muhammad. The Islamophobe cites verse 4 which reads as follows:

047.004
YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

It is truly shocking that one could try to use this verse to try to prove that Islam advocates terrorism. The verse explains itself quite properly, and the other two main English translations of Shakir and Pickhtal have translated it more properly:

PICKTHAL: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

The verse is referring to a battle! Has Geert never witnessed a battle in his life before? Does Geert believe that when battles take place the opposing armies trade jokes with each other while serving tea and biscuits to one another? When there is a battle between two opposing armies they fight each other to the death unless one of them decides to retreat or surrender.

Secondly, the Quranic passage that is cited here was referring specifically to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his fellow Muslims, and back then when they would battle they would use swords. Hence the Quran is giving logical instructions on how to fight in a battle, which is to aim for the neck as to get an instant blow and to nullify your enemy. Also, as we all know after a battle there will always be prisoners to be taken, and these prisoners will usually be ransomed off later.

So what exactly is the problem here? It is very strange that when Islamophobic haters view Quranic passages dealing with battles and wars they some-how use very strange logic which they never apply to other battles and wars that have been waged throughout man's history.

It is very sad that people are actually praising Geert for ?exposing' the Quran with such weak arguments.

Three down, two more to go.

Surah An-Nisa verse 89

The Islamophobe Geert goes back to the 4^th chapter of the Quran, this time he brings verse 89 which reads:

004.089
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

Geert is guilty of taking another passage out of its proper context, as well as its historical context. Since he was not scholarly enough to follow the proper forms of argumentation, we shall have to do the work instead. So let us see this passage in its proper context, this will give us a better understanding of what the passage means:

88 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.89 They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

So Geert conveniently forgot to mention verse 88, the one right before 89. As you can see the command of verse 89 is very specific, and it is specific to the hypocrites mentioned in verse 88. Geert had intended to show that verse 89 was a general command for Muslims to carry out on all non-Muslims, yet thanks to the context of verse 88, we see the command is referring to the hypocrites amongst the Muslims.

Secondly, the historical context comes into the equation now. The hypocrites that are mentioned in verse 88 are referring to the hypocrites who were alive during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). What these men would do was disguise themselves as Muslims, to basically act like infiltrators in order to cause confusion and chaos. They wanted to break the Muslim community from within.

So due to this fact Allah gave the Muslims the permission to fight these hypocrites. However it is important to take note that since Allah is very merciful He still gives these hypocrites a chance as He says:

But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden).

Notice if these hypocrites stopped behaving the way they did and had a pure heart, then they would have been forgiven and no war would have been waged upon them. However, if they persisted then the Muslims would have a legitimate reason to fight these people.

These hypocrites are no different than an army who sends an infiltrator to an opposing army to act like one of them as to get information, basically like a spy, as well as carrying out sabotage acts to break the opposing army.

The Muslims were forced to act on these hypocrites because that is exactly what they were.

Therefore to summarize:

1-The Quranic command is specifically referring to HYPOCRITES who infiltrate the Muslim community and act like Muslims only to spy on them and to break the community from within.

2-The hypocrites are still to be given a chance to repent before war is waged upon them, hence war is not the first option. The hypocrites are given a chance as Allah is merciful.

3-The passage was revealed in a historical period when there were hypocrites who were infiltrating the Muslim community during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Of course Geert ignored all of this.

So with four verses down, only one remains now.

Al-Anfal verse 39

The Islamophobe Geert goes back to 8^th chapter of the Quran and this time he quotes the 39^th verse of the chapter which says:

008.039
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

This verse proves that Islam is a religion of peace, rather than a religion of violence. The passage calls on the Muslims to fight against oppression, and to make sure that justice prevails. Is this not a noble cause that all humans should strive for?

The non-believer may claim the passage says that Muslims should fight to convert people because it says:

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah

However so when we read the ending of the passage we know that this is not the exact cause of fighting:

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease

Notice the passage says that we should fight until there is no more oppression, and then the verse ends by saying "but if they cease", obviously this refers to them ending their oppression.

Thus, Muslims are commanded to fight against oppression to make sure justice stands. Notice the verse says to fight them to stop oppression and does not say "fight them to convert them to Islam".

The reason why the Quran mentions that we should also make people believe in Allah is very simple. Muslims do not fight under the banner of nationalism, we fight for God. This is why when Muslims go out to fight oppression we should also try to make the people living under the oppression see the truth of Islam. It is not an ultimatum, for it is up to them, but the Muslim must still try to bring Islam to them as we fight against oppression in the cause of Islam.

Here is the passage again:

008.039
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

No where does it say that we should fight them until they all convert to Islam or that we should fight them because they aren't Muslims. The command to fight them is because of the oppression they are inflicting.

It is important to take the historical context as well, which is something that Geert has not done. Remember the 8^th chapter of the Quran was revealed in a time of war, a war against the brutal oppressive Qurayshi pagan regime, who would not allow Muslims the right of freedom of religion. The Quraysh committed several oppressive acts, not only in the area of freedom of religion, but also in their treatment of women and the poor. So the Muslims were fighting back now and were commanded to fight against this oppression that the Quraysh were committing.

If the Muslims were all about fighting the pagans because they were not Muslims then how was it that at the same time the Muslims were living side by side with the Jews of Medina? Not only were the Muslims living side by side with the Jews of Medina, there was a written constitution between both parties, which was initiated by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), which allowed the freedom of religion in Medina, meaning no one was forced to convert to any religion and could follow their own!

This historical importance of this refutes any claim that Surah 8 verse 39 was a command to fight the pagans just because they were not Muslims and to force them to Islam. If that was the case then the Muslims first victims would have been the Jews of Medina, they would have forced them to convert, yet that was never the case.

The fact is Surah 8 verse 39 is all about the pagan oppression and it is as simple as that.

Conclusion

We have read and analyzed the Quranic passages that Geert has raised. We have seen from both their textual context, as well as their historical context that none of these verses advocate terrorism.

All we have seen is that Geert abused the Quranic text by taking passages out of their context to paint a false picture and to benefit his right wing agenda.

One positive note we can say is that Geert is doing Allah's work. Thanks to Geert's documentary it has given so much attention to the Quran and has caused it to sell out in the Netherlands, as well as giving it the spot light to the rest of the world. People will be very eager to read the Quran now and they will see the truth and the beauty of it, as well as Geert's wicked distortion.

As Allah has said, while they plan, He too is planning.

And Allah Knows Best!

Ik heb er maandenlang naar uitgekeken. De verwachtingen waren immens. Toch werden ze helemaal ingelost. De Gentse Feesten 2008 waren waarschijnlijk mijn beste Gentse Feesten ooit. Als we Walter Capiau en zijn "Goed begonnen is half gewonnen" mogen geloven, dan kon dat ook moeilijk anders. Mijn start, de Gentse Feesten - drink op mijn kot, was een absolute knaller. Gezellig. Feestelijk. Heel feestelijk. Uitgelaten. Verslagjes van het vervolg, staan in de vorige posts.

Mijn Gentse Feesten waren zo briljant door de halfgoden waarmee ik ze mocht beleven. 4 mensen waren een absolute constante (niet toevallig in die volgorde): Stefaan, Joos, Lientje en Geert. Zij gaven mij - Stefaan en Joos vaak samen met hun vriendinnen - deze briljante tijd, zij vallen niet te abstraheren uit een evaluatie van de Gentse Feesten 2008, net als Ewoud trouwens. Het mag duidelijk zijn dat de aanwezigen op mijn post-GF-BBQ niet toevallig gekozen waren. Een zeer bijzondere vermelding ook voor Nicholas, met wie ik het dit jaar op de Vlasmarkt de eerste keer helemaal zag licht worden en voor Pieter en Leen, met wie ik een doldwaze Vlasmarkt-ochtend beleefde. Ook Marc en Marleen zijn bijzonder bedankt voor de heel erg fijne maandagavond en de BBQ op vrijdag, zonder enige twijfel het beste Feesten-voorspel ooit. Stoelekesdanserje Esther was ook erg tof, na de receptie en zondagavond, net als Kathleen, Jonas (zeker in mijn zetel), de immer innemende Ellen en Mattias, die al graag eens de Vlasmarkt afsloot, de zatlap (dit jaar hield hij wel zijn broek aan, denk ik). Ook aan Peter en zijn N-VA-terras denk ik nu al enigszins nostalgisch terug. En de Duveltent was nooit hetzelfde geweest zonder de bezoekjes van o.a. Jeroen en zijn fraaie vriendin, speeltjes-Lien, Ruth en haar Anton-dansje, zatlap Philippe, zatlap Korneel, stoffige Hans, mijn zusje... Bijzonder grappig waren ook niet-trakteerder Bram Spiessens, de gerant van de Duveltent, en niet-kennis Matthias Laevens en bijzonder fijn waren de uitgebreide kennismaking met Frederick en Cedric. Ook verdienstelijk waren: de immer opgewekte Tine, de geinig champagnekurkenknallende Thibaut en de niet altijd zo ratelende Pieter.

Om toch een beetje informatie bij te houden voor het nageslacht, is het nog neerschrijvenswaardig dat mijn top3 qua plaatsen dit jaar (in die volgorde) de Duveltent, de Vlasmarkt en mijn kot waren. De Planchee, waar we een experimentele polonaise inzetten op Paradise By The Dashboard Light (of zo'n andere klassieker, ik weet het al niet meer), valt net buiten het podium. Trouwens: van de Gentse Feesten weet je: grabbelton voor Olympiërs. Mijn top3 der Duveltent-hits was - hoe kan het ook anders, na de goddelijke geste van DJ Alex jegens mijn persoon - Mexico (Zangeres Zonder Naam), Desenchantee (Kate!) en Thank you for the music (Abba), waarbij ik al eens graag mijn micro bovenhaalde. Smsjes, frieten en testosteron was er nog meer dan in 2007.

Deze Feesten werden ook extreem veel tradities bevestigd, zoals het dulle-frietjes-doen, clandestien haasje-over-springen, veel vallen, dubbele Duvels, op-maandagavond-met-Marc-en-Marleen-in-de-Limonada, Laevens opbellen bij Franse chansons... In tegenstelling tot vorig jaar stond de wereld bovendien wél stil tijdens de Feesten. Stil op het tempo van de drie bemiddelaars. Aan de Feesten heb ik dit jaar kennissen die tot vrienden ontpopten, nieuwe kennissen en enkele ruzies overgehouden. Voor gentblogt schreef ik enkel iets over "De Ondernemers". Ge krijgt dat zelf wel gegooglet.

Vele zaken die me overkwamen zal ik waarschijnlijk nooit vergeten zoals het vallen recht in da glas, de Irish Coffee die Pieter als vergeldingsactie over een dame haar arm goot. Vele vragen blijven ook onopgelost. Spreekt Leo Martin in zijn sketches met Gaston Bergmans nu Gents of Antwerps? Is een ondernemer met 49 arbeidskrachten een middenstander? Behoort Lokeren tot het Waaslangt? De Gentse Feesten 2009 hebben alvast hun bestaansreden...

Hvis i vil se skydeepisoden, så kan i blot tjekke dette link

http://www.mt50.nl/acties/NL/paintball/index.php?afid=79&zanpid=1109425423248267265

De Islam rukt op in Europa. In de meeste landen heeft deze godsdienst nog geen plaatsje kunnen bemachtigen naast de traditionele godsdiensten die al eeuwenlang de boventoon voeren. Maar hoort de Islam niet gewoon thuis in Europa? Immers, deze godsdienst heeft vele volgelingen, die al generaties lang woonachtig zijn op ons continent.

De Britse sociologe Grace Davie stelde afgelopen maand tijdens een vergadering van Europese kerkleiders het volgende: ''Wij negeren de aanwezigheid van de islam, tot ons eigen gevaar. Dit gegeven kan nog diepere veranderingen in het religieuze landschap van Europa veroorzaken.'' Onder invloed van de islam dringt religie weer langzaam door tot het Europese publieke domein, stelt Davie. ''Europa moet weer praten over onderwerpen die afgehandeld werden gewaand. De islam laat zich niet tot het privé-domein terugdringen, zoals we recentelijk hebben gezien.''

Naast de al eeuwenlang bestaande religies op het Europese continent, lijkt het erop dat de Islam, na het christendom de religie met de meeste volgelingen (1.3 miljard), zijn plek heeft verworven. En dus zal er in dat geval in het straatbeeld naast kerken ruimte gemaakt moeten worden voor moskeeën en moet de burka en het hoofddoekje onvoorwaardelijk worden geaccepteerd en toegestaan. Hoe denken jullie hierover?

In his 1922 Munich speech, Hitler stated "It is in the nature of the Jew to destroy and he must destroy. The Jew is harmful to us." Not unlike Wilders's closing message in his film Fitna, stating "Islam wants to rule, submit, and seeks to destroy our Western civilization..."

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/04/23/islamphobia-and-eternal-muslim.html

Always an interesting read. The basis of the propaganda film Fitna is easy to see - post up the same ayaat the khawaarij and terrorists take out of context and claim this is the true Islaam.

Unfortunately for the film's director, that ideology has already been thoroughly refuted by the scholars of true Islaam over the past thousand years or so. He's basing a film off of a defeated idea grounded in a lack of education and understanding, and a certain bigoted element in the West - completely unaware of the religion of Islaam, unable too read its texts and discourse, and unaware of the history of the Muslim world - apparently thinks that after more than a thousand years, a Westerner who doesn't even speak Arabic has discovered what Islaam is actually like rather than an actual scholar of the religion doing so.

Honestly, I don't understand why Muslims would even be angry over this. I actually find it humorous. The Khaarijee-Ikhwaanee ideology held by people such as Bin Laden and Zawahiri now, and by Sayyid Qutb and Hasan al-Bannaa earlier, has already been owned beyond belief by actual scholars of Islaam. In earlier times, the ideology of the earlier khawaarij had already been eviscerated by scholars at that time as well. Having a Western non-Muslim who has never studied Islaam formally, and who only speaks European languages, suddenly come along and decide what the correct position is just comical. It's a suggestion that is neither logically nor practically sound; his argument certainly wouldn't be given any credence in a real academic setting.

Once again I think Muslims have just made fools of themselves by creating controversy over this. The film is so weak that it honestly doesn't even warrant a second glance. If Zarqawi, who actually does speak Arabic and actually does know a few things about Islaam - the director of the film can claim neither - has already been refuted beyond belief, why even bother with some Dutch movie man? It's like arguing with a spoiled college hippie about Marxism. Why waste your time on him when people much more knowledgeable on that same mistaken idea have already been defeated?

The ummah needs to learn the Sunnah. Were that the case, I have the feeling people wouldn't feel threatened by hack films like this at all. Unfortunately ignorance again prevails amongst the Muslims, and we condemn ourselves to continued foolishness because of it.

http://www.liveprayer.com/fitna.cfm
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4102738/Fitna_the_movie_-_English_-_AVI_and_FLV_format

I first learned about them and their project last year in the blogs and photostreams of my Flickr friends. I was very happy to see their show today and meet them later. The gist of their American story began last spring when they rented a motor home and traveled America making a very entertaining film about the future of libraries. From New York to North Carolina to Nebraska to California they interviewed people on the street and librarians in their workplaces about the profession, the challenges, and the future. Cleanly edited and mixed with music, the result is slick, insightful, and spiced with humor.

Moreover, it's good storytelling. "If books go away, what will be left?" they asked at one point. Later, in what could have easily been an answer, they said a library's "most important collection is the people." It was fitting that people -- not the books or the technology -- made up the bulk of their film.

Another wonderful line from the film was uttered by Michael Stephens of Dominican University. Asked what libraries will do for people in the future, Michael said the library "will encourage my heart." One of his students gave a description of library openness and access that is simply too long to transcribe here but (trust me) it was terrific.

Back on the stage between clips, Erik, Geert and Jaap hosted a few audience members on their couch, offered them cookies and water, and conducted live interviews to carry on the conversation from the film. Laptops; cameras; a fish bowl; assorted coffee table clutter. It was a very casual affair to say the least. Engaging. Fun. Participatory. In my mind, it was exactly what libraries of the future should be. I loved it.

BTW: There was plenty more to tell about the day, but that's all the energy I've got tonight. More later...

Question:
A Dutch film has recently been released that maligns Islam and Muslims, and describes them as terrorists. What is your advice to the Muslims concerning this matter?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

The conflict between truth and falsehood is an ancient one. The troops of falsehood continue to confront the truth at all times and in all places. But Allaah caused them to be defeated by the strength of the truth and He hurls the truth against falsehood and destroys it, so it is bound to vanish.

Ever since Iblees was humiliated and refused to respond to the command of Allaah to prostrate to Adam (peace be upon him), he began to plot against the truth and its followers. Iblees asked his Lord for a respite, not so that he could repent, but so that he could plot, and increase the number of his followers and bring them into the Fire of Allaah, where he will stand and address them, saying:

“ ‘Verily, Allaah promised you a promise of truth. And I too promised you, but I betrayed you. I had no authority over you except that I called you, and you responded to me. So blame me not, but blame yourselves. I cannot help you, nor can you help me. I deny your former act in associating me (Satan) as a partner with Allaah (by obeying me in the life of the world). Verily, there is a painful torment for the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers)’”

[Ibraaheem 14:22].

Secondly:

Islam has faced many great plots, but Allaah has guaranteed to protect His religion, because He has made it the best of religions and the final religion.

Thirdly:

Here we are dealing with a new incident, but it will not be the last, because of the devils among mankind and the jinn and their ultimately hopeless attempts to impugn this religion, this Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and this Holy Book.

This incident is what has been wrought by the sinful hands of a man called Geert Wilders, the leader of the “Freedom” Party, which is a right-wing, racist Dutch party. He wanted to slander this great religion in order to become well known and to make political gains, but Allaah foiled him and he will be foiled time and again, in sha Allaah. This hater made a short film of seventeen minutes about Islam and the Qur’aan, filled with lies and fabrications, and he called it “Fitnah”! If what he said was presented to an academic institution or university, he would deserve to be rebuked and scorned, because of his lack of objectivity, and because of his distortion of facts.

His film starts and ends with an offensive image of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that was drawn by the sinful, criminal hands of the Danish artist. At the beginning it shows a bomb in the turban of the so-called picture of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), where the fuse has just been lit. At the end of the film, the fuse has burnt down, then it explodes. Thus he wants to send the despicable message that Islam came to wreak havoc and destruction, and that remaining silent about it will lead to the demise of non-Muslim civilizations and nations.

Fourthly:

We can divide our opinions about this evil film into a number of categories:

1. Verses which are quoted out of context and their meanings distorted.

For example:

(a)

The first verse to be quoted in his film is (interpretation of the meaning):

“And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allaah and your enemy, and others besides…”

[al-Anfaal 8:60].

The quotation reaches this point but does not complete it. He wants to highlight the word “threaten” to indicate that Islam equals terrorism, which is how many haters and ignorant people want to label Islam.

We are not ashamed of what is in the Book of Allaah and we do not deny this verse, rather we worship Allaah by reciting it, and we ask Him to help us to act in accordance with it. But we reject his quoting this part of it on the basis of two things, to keep the discussion short:

Firstly, what he is denouncing Islam for is something that is done by all great and mighty nations. They produce lethal weapons, atomic bombs, planes, submarines and so on, to defend themselves and to threaten their enemies lest anyone attack them. This is what is meant in this verse. The kaafirs who occupy Muslim lands could not have dared to do so except when the Muslims ceased to implement this verse. The most recent example of that is Iraq, where they put pressure on the government to destroy their weapons and missiles, then when that had been done and confirmed, they invaded and occupied the land, and mistreated its people.

Secondly, understanding the context of the verse properly will prove wrong the label of terrorism that he wants to apply to Islam, as he and his gang understand it. The verse which comes directly after this one says (interpretation of the meaning):

“But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allaah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower”

[al-Anfaal 8:61].

(b)

The second verse that is heard in the film is (interpretation of the meaning):

“Surely, those who disbelieved in Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), We shall burn them in Fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for other skins that they may taste the punishment. Truly, Allaah is Ever Most Powerful, All‑Wise”

[al-Nisa’ 4:56].

The deception here is that this movie director quotes this verse to show viewers that Islam enjoins burning those who go against it until their skin is cooked, and this is something that Allaah has prescribed for them.

This may be refuted on two counts:

Firstly, what he does is a foolish deception, because in this verse Allaah is speaking of the punishment of the kaafirs on the Day of Resurrection, not in this world. It is followed by mention of the reward of the believers who affirm His Oneness (Tawheed):

“But those who believe (in the Oneness of Allaah — Islamic Monotheism) and do deeds of righteousness, We shall admit them to Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), abiding therein forever. Therein they shall have Azwaajun Mutahharatun (purified mates or wives), and We shall admit them to shades wide and ever deepening (Paradise)”

[al-Nisa’ 4:57].

Secondly, even the briefest pondering of this verse will show the lies, fabrications and misquotations of this director. In this verse, Allaah says “We shall change them for other skins”. Are the Muslims able to change the skins of those whose skins are burned in this world?!

2. Fabricated pictures, or pictures that do not show what he is trying to prove, or that show things which are denounced in Islam altogether

For example:

(a)

Pictures of a group of Raafidis – Shi’ah – wounding themselves and their children with sharp tools, causing their heads to bleed, in a disgusting scene. This is not part of our religion, rather it is done by some of those who call themselves Muslims out of ignorance and misguidance on their part.

The picture which shows swords being held aloft covered with blood is also an image of the Shi’ah on their special occasions, but the lying filmmaker wants to make people think that these are Muslims and that they have just finished a party where kaafirs’ heads were cut off.

(b)

Another ridiculous and clearly false image is the picture of Muslim women in niqaab waving placards on which it is written “God bless Hitler”!

We say: This is clearly a lie and a fabrication. In our religion we are forbidden to pray for the one who dies a kaafir. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“It is not (proper) for the Prophet and those who believe to ask Allaah’s forgiveness for the Mushrikoon, even though they be of kin, after it has become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the Fire (because they died in a state of disbelief)”

[al-Tawbah 9:113].

How can women who wear niqaab and adhere to the rulings of Islam pray for blessing for Hitler?

3. Video clips, some of which contain facts which cannot be doubted and others contain distortion of facts and deceive viewers.

For example:

(a)

A fabricated meeting with a little girl. It is obvious that they have not presented her or fabricated her story very well, for two reasons:

Firstly, she is wearing hijab, and they are asking her about her religion. It is obvious that she is acting.

Secondly, the child who was acting was asked about her opinion of Jews and Christians and she said that they are monkeys and pigs.

This is not part of our religion; Islam does not say that the Jews and Christians are monkeys and pigs, rather it says that a group of Jews in the past tried to use tricks to circumvent the laws of their Lord, so Allaah punished them by turning them into monkeys. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday). We said to them: ‘Be you monkeys, despised and rejected’”

[al-Baqarah 2:65]

“So when they exceeded the limits of what they were prohibited, We said to them: ‘Be you monkeys, despised and rejected’”

[al-A’raaf 7:166].

(b)

Showing video clips out of context, such as the clip of a khateeb (preacher) who brandishes a sword and threatens the kuffaar.

This Shaykh is well known. He was Iraqi and he waved the sword during his khutbah (sermon) to encourage the people to fight against the kuffaar who are occupying his country, and he was killed by the Raafidis – may they get from Allaah what they deserve. What does he expect the Muslims to do if their land is occupied? Give up their wealth and their honour, and wait to be killed, or approve and forgive the criminal occupier?! No, Islam is a religion of pride and dignity, and the Muslims refuse to be humiliated; they have no alternative but to fight the occupier. This is confirmed by every religion and law on earth. In fact the leader of the occupation himself said, “If my country were occupied I would fight the occupier.” If we assume that he would indeed fight and not run away, he is only speaking the truth, i.e., that the occupier is to be fought.

What is wrong with the Muslims fighting a jihad against those who occupy their land?

Fifthly:

The main ideas of the film are all aimed at insulting Islam by mocking and making fun of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); by reviling the Qur’aan and calling it a “fascist” book, as it says in the film; and by warning of the danger of mosques. All of that the filmmaker tries to do in his short film by use of video clips, moving images and the accompanying music, but he fails miserably, because he uses lies, falsification and deceit, which will never be accepted by the viewer, even if he is a kaafir.

But Allaah has caused his plot to backfire, because the people in Holland are rushing to buy Islamic books and copies of the Qur’aan, to see what is in them, and they will see in them that which will show the falseness and fabrication of what this failed filmmaker has produced. This has indeed happened; three people from that country became Muslim after watching the film, and Dutch companies have threatened to take this filmmaker, who is also an MP, to court if Muslim countries boycott their products. Thus this MP will be humiliated and shamed, and the evil plot will not affect anyone but its authors.

Sixthly:

Allaah has clearly supported His religion. Since the launch of the movie was announced, non-Muslim organizations, governments and individuals have denounced this filmmaking MP, and stated that Islam has nothing to do with violence and terrorism, and that Muslims themselves are victims of terrorism as well as others. Among those who have denounced and objected to the actions of this filmmaking MP is the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, who said strong words against it; the Secretary of the United Nations; the European Union; and a number of politicians, leaders and countries. Satellite channels, both public and private, have refused to show this film, and he could only find one web site that would publish it.

In Mufakkirat al-Islam (Saturday 22 Rabee’ al-Awwa; 1429 AH/29 March 2008), it says:

In Brussels, the European Parliament condemned this offensive film, and the President of the Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, attacked the Dutch MP Wilders, saying: The contents of the film seem designed to stir up the religious sensitivities of Muslims in the Netherlands, Europe and worldwide.

He added: On behalf of the European Parliament, I emphatically refuse to accept the film’s message that Islam is a violent religion – indicating that he fully endorsed the statement of the Dutch government which rejected the film “Fitnah”.

Similarly, the European Union issued a statement that it regarded the fifteen-minute-long film as hostile and offensive to Islam, and likely to spread hate. End quote.

As for the Muslims, they took action to denounce and condemn the film, and they issued statements and warnings against continuing to malign the symbols of our religion. Some countries threatened to cut ties with the Netherlands, and MPs in some countries demanded the expulsion of the Dutch ambassador and boycotts of Dutch products. Despite the weakness and disunity in which the Muslims are living, this was regarded as great support for Islam, as there are people among both the kuffaar and the Muslims who are defending our religion. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands himself sent a letter to the Shaykh of al-Azhar, stating that his government objected to the production and showing of this film, and that a case had been brought before the Dutch courts.

How would the situation be if the Muslims were truly united and they had the strength to instil respect and awe in the hearts of those haters and fabricators?

Seventhly:

It seems to us that this lying MP wanted to achieve certain aims by making this film, including the following:

1. Personal gain, fame and victory at the polls.

2. Pleasing the Jews. That is obvious in his film, as in a number of clips he expresses sympathy for them. But they are occupiers and criminals. At the same time as he speaks of killing by Muslims, he forgets or pretends to forget two things:

(i) That the one who burned millions of Jews was a Christian, namely Hitler, who said in his book Mein Kampf that this was on the orders of God!

(ii) That the Jews killed and expelled a great number of Muslims, and they were not ashamed to call their latest battle against Gaza a “holocaust”.

3. Alerting the West to the high percentages of Muslims in their countries, and saying that large numbers of Muslims poses a danger to Europe.

4. Alerting Europe in general, and the Netherlands in particular, to the spread of mosques in their lands. This is clear from his showing pictures of mosques in the Netherlands, to warn of their presence.

5. Attempting to ban circulation of Qur’aans in Europe, and computing the Holy Qur’aan to Hitler’s book Mein Kampf! Hence he describes the Qur’aan as “fascist”, which is a word that is indicative of violence and harshness

Allaah has humiliated this filmmaking MP by means of this pathetic work that is filled with lies and fabrications. People will see the difference between lies and the truth when they read the Holy Qur’aan and what has been written about Islam and about him by the wise among their own people. This film will motivate them to read and find out, in sha Allaah, and perhaps it will be the cause of many being saved from misguidance.

Eighthly:

The basic message of this film is to describe Islam as a terrorist and violent religion. But this is no more than a fabrication. Islam is the religion of mercy, justice and humanity. It is what saved the people of other religions from the injustice and wrongdoing of their rulers, as happened in Andalusia, Egypt and other countries in which people of other groups were badly mistreated, including the Jews.

Israel Wolfenson says:

The minor losses incurred by the Jews in the Hijaz are insignificant in comparison with the benefits that the Jews gained with the emergence of Islam. The Muslim conquerors saved thousands of Jews who were spread throughout the lands of the Roman Empire, and who were faced with all kinds of persecution.

Al-Yahood wa’l-Tahaaluf ma’a al-Aqwiya’ by Dr. Nu’maan ‘Abd al-Razzaaq al-Saamara’i, quoted in an article by Professor Khaalid Joodah, al-Faariq al-Insaani bayna Hadaarat al-Islam wa Thaqaafat al-Gharb.

Islam is not a religion which accepts humiliation, and jihad for the sake of Allaah is one of its main principles and one of the greatest of deeds in Islam. It is prescribed in order to protect the Muslims from their enemies, to convey the religion of Allaah, and to spread the word of Tawheed (divine Oneness) throughout the world. Islam does not say that people must be forced to enter it, because one of the conditions of Islam (being Muslim) is sincerity, and if there is no sincerity then one is a hypocrite among the ranks of Muslims, and Islam does not want this base characteristic among its followers. On the other hand, we find that priests and monks have played a part in forcing people to accept Christianity in