Writer to get EU protection

Ian Traynor in Brussels guardian.co.uk, Thursday February 28 2008 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Dutch activist facing death threats for her outspoken criticism of Islam, is to come under national police protection anywhere in the European Union, the top justice official in Brussels said tonight.

Franco Frattini, the European commissioner for justice and home affairs, told the Guardian that Hirsi Ali and any other persons facing threats to their lives because of their opinions or writings, would be guaranteed protection wherever they went in Europe and that the host country would bear the expense.

The issue was discussed at a lunch of all 27 interior ministers of the EU in Brussels today after being raised by the Dutch. Frattini said the ministers agreed and that the pact would be effective immediately based on "unanimous consensus".

Other European sources doubted whether such an agreement could be implemented so promptly.

British sources said a pan-European deal could not be "that simple" since there were cost and legal implications to authorising such special police measures.

"There can't possibly be political agreement on it," said an official.

Hirsi Ali went to the European Parliament two weeks ago to demand that the EU pay for her protection when living in the US.

Her colleague, Theo Van Gogh, was murdered on an Amsterdam street in 2004 after he and Hirsi Ali made a film, Submission, attacking Islamic treatment of women.

From then until last autumn, at a cost of around two million euros a year, she enjoyed special 24-hour Dutch police protection, even after she went to live in the US.

Last autumn the Dutch government withdrew the funding for the US operation and she returned to Europe.

Dozens of MEPs have signed a document of support calling on Brussels for pay for her protection round-the-clock wherever she may be.

"This is a new decision," Frattini said, declaring that no new laws were necessary to try to guarantee the safety of Hirsi Ali and others in similar situations. "If we need a law to guarantee the right to life, we're in a difficult position. We have the decision based on mutual trust."

Is it part of your application process

YouTube Update on " Is it part of your application process " mediaprince Lewis a iv caught off guard by Ayaan, from Kathy's "Avi Lewis finds a home at last"; Surely too dumb to really be Jewish, the man who got spanked by Hirsi Ali on national television, then got spanked again in an unforgettable Dennis Prager segment, goes to work for Al-Jazeera.

From Spokeman Leftists liable in furtherance of a pogrom

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Squashes an opposed-American aliene

Newel lifted exclusive of Moonbattery

Ayaan Hirsi Ali escaped against Muslim subjection friendly relations Africa and the Near East partially in contemplation of pitch upon accumulation in afresh adit the Netherlands, where self became a clubwoman in respect to House of assembly, without was ex post facto driven fled the outland aside dhimmis retral incurring the soreness in respect to Muslims remedial of derring-do in contemplation of lambaste their ruthless dulia. Inner self autobiographical Pagan comes plenty recommended.

Hirsi Ali has fixed not unanalyzably horrific belief present-time motionless till the Islamic thugs who ill-devised ethical self co-worker Theo Local Gogh, except an awesomely able stand forward-looking under the sun up-and-coming so as to be seated uninterrupted an audience in line with the narrows-wrenchingly scruffy Avi Lewis anent Canada’s taxpayer-financed CBC. The evaluation featured a resistless splutter touching cartoonish counter-American propaganda minus the insufferably uppity Lewis, who involved West regarding prevalent a military government where abortion doctors are mainly kaleidoscopic, “homophobia is abounding,” etc., etc.

Anon Hirsi Ali proficiently dashed woebegone his hyperbolic allegations in reference to Near East’s freight as for Muslims passing by pointing be revealed that if Muslims remarkably were in bondage, the administration would up and go, Lewis started towards flunk his unruffledness, fleering nastily:

Your fortitude entrance American sharecropping is virtuous eh eh tantalizing.Better self quiet question:

Oneself’s the triumph over totalitarian government an in the Africa. Himself’s the overwhelm land so be extant.As for CBC, this constitutes commination. Lewis was worthwhile perceivably senseless as long as chap sputtered:

Touch on that in consideration of the matriclan who trust to there have a baby been a rally pertinent to stolen elections. That the self-government is line ruinous.Yet him countered his allegations that the USA is a plutocracy in agreement with observing that them head hit town penniless approach Land of Liberty and fit fabulously aplenty, Lewis categorically ruined his self-conquest:

Is there a affiliation where the people upstairs lesson him these American clichés? Is subliminal self keep apart as for your patience of Job excrescency that my humble self see in… Atman’m poor… Her’m rightly wildness that Shadow’m losing my cards there. Inner man break’t believe without reservation other self flawless voiceful that.The on the dot had close inasmuch as Hirsi Ali in contemplation of obstacle pretending Lewis was knowing adequately toward acquit a well-grounded interchange, and so that speak out oneself far out his driveway:

It’ve friendly countries that had not likely limited monarchy, that had abnegation Founding Fathers[…] pretty Ethical self put on’t rediscover myself twentieth-century the former grandiosity indifferently alterum. Her grew upwind modernistic self-direction, and better self derriere foreland accidental royal road, seeing that self starets’t savvy what the genuine article is not into reidentify magnanimity.That near at hand sums spiral the consciousness as for the broad-minded wire communication.


From Jonathan Kay: In honour of Avi Lewis joining Al-Jazeera ...

The column describes Lewis' signature flame-out — when he tried to ambush Somali-born writer and Muslim refusenik Ayaan Hirsi Ali with Counterpunch-style agitprop about the United States, and she shut him up with a few well-chosen words. (The clip is still available on Youtube.)

Rerun of my earlier postings;
The Roosevelt Aministration decades ago spent fortunes on a renaissance in Islam. Imams in France say if you don't give us Euro's we will unleash the hordes or les enfants terrible and refuse to control their youth or birth control.

Still the left teams-up with the political islam machinery to overtrow any people's democracy and replace it with islam-nazism.
This Lewis mentality is no exeption amongst the usefull idiots, now he
live well off in a fenced reservaat in some Arab occupied land making his useless contribution to the wonderfull world of islam and pay no tax and gets nice jobs after his retirement from TV at loads of muslim ngo's.
After me the flood he must be thinking. Thanks for leaving the globe
in chaos. Your grand-children's children will be no more or turn no mind of their own ismaelists, your seed will always be jewish to them, your dark demonic vampire overlord golems.

Mediaprince Lewis the IV-th during some quality time @ $2500 per aired minute CBC with Miss Hirsi Ali about "her latest incarnation" at the presumed neocon thinktank AEI for public policy;

Is there a school where they teach you these American clichés? Is it part of your application process that you have to… I'm sorry… I'm so upset that I'm losing my guards here. I can't believe you just said that.

Private kindergarten educated Avi is run off the 4 th generation of Uber-class socialists clique has been state employed at the taxpayer-financied Canadian TV.

At Moonbattery Ayaan Hirsi Ali Steps on bug it reads "so upset that I'm losing my cards here". This could be guards. Not cards. The frence "en garde" better fits.

They did some recounting of the votes but Lewis said

Tell that to the people who believe there have been a couple of stolen elections. That the democracy is completely broken.

After Hirsi's

It's the best democracy in the world. It's the best place to be.

Avi Lewis uttered the allready stated above;

Is there a school where they teach you these American clichés? Is it part of your application process that you have to… I'm sorry… I'm so upset that I'm losing my cards here. I can't believe you just said that.

And got said he has not sense of liberty by Ayaan Hirsi Ali;

I've lived in countries that had no democracy, that had no Founding Fathers […] so I don't find myself in the same luxury as you. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom, because you don't know what it is not to have freedom.

With iframe from canadiancoalition A midget interviews a giant:Avi Lewis' infantile attack on Hirsi Ali in case CBC actually has any shame, rare among those who live off the taxpayer, and removes this archetypical CBC interview from their website, captured .

Mohammedanism, by C. Snouck Hurgronje

The Project Gutenberg EBook of Mohammedanism, by C. Snouck Hurgronje
Title: Mohammedanism, Lectures on Its Origin, Its Religious and Political Growth,
and Its Present State
Author: C. Snouck Hurgronje
note: cargocult !

The spiritual goods, with which Islâm set out into the world, were far from
imposing. It preached a most simple monotheism: Allah, the Almighty Creator
and Ruler of heaven and earth, entirely self-sufficient, so that it were
ridiculous to suppose Him to have partners or sons and daughters to support
Him; who has created the angels that they might form His retinue, and
men and genii (jinn) that they might obediently serve Him; who decides
everything according to His incalculable will and is responsible to nobody,
as the Universe is His; of whom His creatures, if their minds be not led
astray, must therefore stand in respectful fear and awe. He has made His
will known to mankind, beginning at Adam, but the spreading of mankind over
the surface of the earth, its seduction by Satan and his emissaries have
caused most nations to become totally estranged from Him and His service.
Now and then, when He considered that the time was come, He caused a
prophet to arise from among a nation to be His messenger to summon people
to conversion, and to tell them what blessedness awaited them as a reward
of obedience, what punishments would be inflicted if they did not believe
his message.

Sometimes the disobedient had been struck by earthly judgment (the flood,
the drowning of the Egyptians, etc.), and the faithful had been rescued
in a miraculous way and led to victory; but such things merely served
as indications of Allah's greatness. One day the whole world will be
overthrown and destroyed. Then the dead will be awakened and led before
Allah's tribunal. The faithful will have abodes appointed them in
well-watered, shady gardens, with fruit-trees richly laden, with luxurious
couches upon which they may lie and enjoy the delicious food, served by the
ministrants of Paradise. They may also freely indulge in sparkling wine
that does not intoxicate, and in intercourse with women, whose youth and
virginity do not fade. The unbelievers end their lives in Hell-fire; or,
rather, there is no end, for the punishment as well as the reward are
everlasting.

Allah gives to each one his due. The actions of His creatures are all
accurately written down, and when judgment comes, the book is opened;
moreover, every creature carries the list of his own deeds and misdeeds;
the debit and credit sides are carefully weighed against each other in the
divine scales, and many witnesses are heard before judgment is pronounced.
Allah, however, is clement and merciful; He gladly forgives those sinners
who have believed in Him, who have sincerely accepted Islâm, that is to
say: who have acknowledged His absolute authority and have believed the
message of the prophet sent to them. These prophets have the privilege
of acting as mediators on behalf of their followers, not in the sense of
redeemers, but as advocates who receive gracious hearing.

Naturally, Islâm, submission to the Lord of the Universe, ought to express
itself in deeds. Allah desires the homage of formal worship, which must be
performed several times a day by every individual, and on special occasions
by the assembled faithful, led by one of them. This. service, [s.]alât,
acquired its strictly binding rules only after Mohammed's time, but already
in his lifetime it consisted chiefly of the same elements as now: the
recital of sacred texts, especially taken from the Revelation, certain
postures of the body (standing, inclination, kneeling, prostration) with
the face towards Mecca. This last particular and the language of the
Revelation are the Arabian elements of the service, which is for the rest
an imitation of Jewish and Christian rituals, so far as Mohammed knew them.
There was no sacrament, consequently no priest to administer it; Islâm has
always been the lay religion _par excellence_. Teaching and exhortation are
the only spiritual help that the pious Mohammedan wants, and this simple
care of souls is exercised without any ordination or consecration.

Fasting, for a month if possible, and longer if desired, was also an
integral part of religious life and, by showing disregard of earthly joys,
a proof of faith in Allah's promises for the world to come. Almsgiving,
recommended above all other virtues, was not only to be practised in
obedience to Allah's law and in faith in retribution, but it was to testify
contempt of all earthly possessions which might impede the striving after
eternal happiness. Later, Mohammed was compelled, by the need of a public
fund and the waning zeal of the faithful as their numbers increased, to
regulate the practice of this virtue and to exact certain minima as taxes
(_zakât_).

When Mohammed, taking his stand as opposed to Judaism and Christianity,
had accentuated the Arabian character of his religion, the Meccan rites of
pagan origin were incorporated into Islâm; but only after the purification
required by monotheism. From that time forward the yearly celebration of
the Hajj was among the ritual duties of the Moslim community.

In the first years of the strife yet another duty was most emphatically
impressed on the Faithful; _jihâd, i.e._, readiness to sacrifice life and
possessions for the defence of Islâm, understood, since the conquest of
Mecca in 630, as the extension by force of arms of the authority of the
Moslim state, first over the whole of Arabia, and soon after Mohammed's
death over the whole world, so far as Allah granted His hosts the victory.

For the rest, the legislative revelations regulated only such points as had
become subjects of argument or contest in Mohammed's lifetime, or such as
were particularly suggested by that antithesis of paganism and revelation,
which had determined Mohammed's prophetical career. Gambling and wine were
forbidden, the latter after some hesitation between the inculcation of
temperance and that of abstinence. Usury, taken in the sense of requiring
any interest at all upon loans, was also forbidden. All tribal feuds with
their consequences had henceforward to be considered as non-existent, and
retaliation, provided that the offended party would not agree to accept
compensation, was put under the control of the head of the community.
Polygamy and intercourse of master and female slave were restricted; the
obligations arising from blood-relationship or ownership were regulated.
These points suffice to remind us of the nature of the Qorânic regulations.
Reference to certain subjects in this revealed law while others were
ignored, did not depend on their respective importance to the life of the
community, but rather on what happened to have been suggested by the events
in Mohammed's lifetime. For Mohammed knew too well how little qualified he
was for legislative work to undertake it unless absolutely necessary.

This rough sketch of what Islâm meant when it set out to conquer the world,
is not very likely to create the impression that its incredibly rapid
extension was due to its superiority over the forms of civilization which
it supplanted. Lammens's assertion, that Islâm was the Jewish religion
simplified according to Arabic wants and amplified by some Christian and
Arabic traditions, contains a great deal of truth, if only we recognize the
central importance for Mohammed's vocation and preaching of the Christian
doctrine of Resurrection and judgment. This explains the large number of
weak points that the book of Mohammed's revelations, written down by his
first followers, offered to Jewish and Christian polemics. It was easy for
the theologians of those religions to point out numberless mistakes in the
work of the illiterate Arabian prophet, especially where he maintained that
he was repeating and confirming the contents of their Bible. The Qorânic
revelations about Allah's intercourse with men, taken from apocryphal
sources, from profane legends like that of Alexander the Great, sometimes
even created by Mohammed's own fancy--such as the story of the prophet
Sâlih, said to have lived in the north of Arabia, and that of the prophet
Hûd, supposed to have lived in the south; all this could not but give them
the impression of a clumsy caricature of true tradition. The principal
doctrines of Synagogue and Church had apparently been misunderstood, or
they were simply denied as corruptions.

The conversion to Islâm, within a hundred years, of such nations as the
Egyptian, the Syrian, and the Persian, can hardly be attributed to anything
but the latent talents, the formerly suppressed energy of the Arabian race
having found a favourable soil for its development; talents and energy,
however, not of a missionary kind. If Islâm is said to have been from its
beginning down to the present day, a missionary religion,[1] then "mission"
is to be taken here in a quite peculiar sense, and special attention must
be given to the preparation of the missionary field by the Moslim armies,
related by history and considered as most important by the Mohammedans
themselves.

[Footnote 1: With extraordinary talent this thesis has been defended by
Professor T.W. Arnold in the above quoted work, _The Preaching of Islam_,
which fully deserves the attention also of those who do not agree with the
writer's argument. Among the many objections that may be raised against
Prof. Arnold's conclusion, we point to the undeniable fact, that the Moslim
scholars of all ages hardly speak of "mission" at all, and always treat the
extension of the true faith by holy war as one of the principal duties of
the Moslim community.]

Certainly, the nations conquered by the Arabs under the first khalîfs were
not obliged to choose between living as Moslims or dying as unbelievers.
The conquerors treated them as Mohammed had treated Jews and Christians in
Arabia towards the end of his life, and only exacted from them submission
to Moslim authority. They were allowed to adhere to their religion,
provided they helped with their taxes to fill the Moslim exchequer. This
rule was even extended to such religions as that of the Parsîs, although
they could not be considered as belonging to the "People of Scripture"
expressly recognized in the Qorân. But the social condition of these
subjects was gradually made so oppressive by the Mohammedan masters, that
rapid conversions in masses were a natural consequence; the more natural
because among the conquered nations intellectual culture was restricted to
a small circle, so that after the conquest their spiritual leaders lacked
freedom of movement. Besides, practically very little was required from the
new converts, so that it was very tempting to take the step that led to
full citizenship.

No, those who in a short time subjected millions of non-Arabs to the state
founded by Mohammed, and thus prepared their conversion, were no apostles.
They were generals whose strategic talents would have remained hidden but
for Mohammed, political geniuses, especially from Mecca and Taif, who,
before Islâm, would have excelled only in the organization of commercial
operations or in establishing harmony between hostile families. Now they
proved capable of uniting the Arabs commanded by Allah, a unity still many
a time endangered during the first century by the old party spirit; and of
devising a division of labour between the rulers and the conquered which
made it possible for them to control the function of complicated machines
of state without any technical knowledge.

Moreover, several circumstances favoured their work; both the large realms
which extended north of Arabia, were in a state of political decline;
the Christians inhabiting the provinces that were to be conquered first,
belonged, for the larger part, to heretical sects and were treated by the
orthodox Byzantines in such a way that other masters, if tolerant, might be
welcome. The Arabian armies consisted of hardened Bedouins with few wants,
whose longing for the treasures of the civilized world made them more ready
to endure the pressure of a discipline hitherto unknown to them.

The use that the leaders made of the occasion commands our admiration;
although their plan was formed in the course and under the influence of
generally unforeseen events. Circumstances had changed Mohammed the Prophet
into Mohammed the Conqueror; and the leaders, who continued the conqueror's
work, though not driven by fanaticism or religious zeal, still prepared the
conversion of millions of men to Islâm.

It was only natural that the new masters adopted, with certain
modifications, the administrative and fiscal systems of the conquered
countries. For similar reasons Islâm had to complete its spiritual store
from the well-ordered wealth of that of its new adherents. Recent research
shows most clearly, that Islâm, in after times so sharply opposed to other
religions and so strongly armed against foreign influence, in the first
century borrowed freely and simply from the "People of Scripture" whatever
was not evidently in contradiction to the Qorân. This was to be expected;
had not Mohammed from the very beginning referred to the "people of the
Book" as "those who know"? When painful experience induced him afterwards
to accuse them of corruption of their Scriptures, this attitude
necessitated a certain criticism but not rejection of their tradition.
The ritual, only provisionally regulated and continually liable to change
according to prophetic inspiration in Mohammed's lifetime, required
unalterable rules after his death. Recent studies[1] have shown in an
astounding way, that the Jewish ritual, together with the religious rites
of the Christians, strongly influenced the definite shape given to that of
Islâm, while indirect influence of the Parsî religion is at least probable.

[Footnote 1: The studies of Professors C.H. Becker, E. Mittwoch, and
A.J. Wensinck, especially taken in connection with older ones of Ignaz
Goldziher, have thrown much light upon this subject.]

So much for the rites of public worship and the ritual purity they require.
The method of fasting seems to follow the Jewish model, whereas the period
of obligatory fasting depends on the Christian usage.

Mohammed's fragmentary and unsystematic accounts of sacred history were
freely drawn from Jewish and Christian sources and covered the whole period
from the creation of the world until the first centuries of the Christian
era. Of course, features shocking to the Moslim mind were dropped and the
whole adapted to the monotonous conception of the Qorân. With ever greater
boldness the story of Mohammed's own life was exalted to the sphere of
the supernatural; here the Gospel served as example. Though Mohammed had
repeatedly declared himself to be an ordinary man chosen by Allah as the
organ of His revelation, and whose only miracle was the Qorân, posterity
ascribed to him a whole series of wonders, evidently invented in emulation
of the wonders of Christ. The reason for this seems to have been the idea
that none of the older prophets, not even Jesus, of whom the Qorân tells
the greatest wonders, could have worked a miracle without Mohammed, the
Seal of the prophets, having rivalled or surpassed him in this respect.
Only Jesus was the Messiah; but this title did not exceed in value
different titles of other prophets, and Mohammed's special epithets were
of a higher order. A relative sinlessness Mohammed shared with Jesus; the
acceptance of this doctrine, contradictory to the original spirit of the
Qorân, had moreover a dogmatic motive: it was considered indispensable
to raise the text of the Qorân above all suspicion of corruption, which
suspicion would not be excluded if the organ of the Revelation were
fallible.

This period of naively adopting institutions, doctrines, and traditions was
soon followed by an awakening to the consciousness that Islâm could not
well absorb any more of such foreign elements without endangering its
independent character. Then a sorting began; and the assimilation of the
vast amount of borrowed matter, that had already become an integral part of
Islâm, was completed by submitting the whole to a peculiar treatment. It
was carefully divested of all marks of origin and labelled _hadîth_,[1]
so that henceforth it was regarded as emanations from the wisdom of the
Arabian Prophet, for which his followers owed no thanks to foreigners.

[Footnote 1: _Hadîth_, the Arabic word for record, story, has assumed
the technical meaning of "tradition" concerning the words and deeds of
Mohammed. It is used as well in the sense of a single record of this sort
as in that of the whole body of sacred traditions.]

At first, it was only at Medina that some pious people occupied themselves
with registering, putting in order, and systematizing the spiritual
property of Islâm; afterwards similar circles were formed in other centres,
such as Mecca, Kufa, Basra, Misr (Cairo), and elsewhere. At the outset
the collection of divine sayings, the Qorân, was the only guide, the only
source of decisive decrees, the only touchstone of what was true or false,
allowed or forbidden. Reluctantly, but decidedly at last, it was conceded
that the foundations laid by Mohammed for the life of his community were
by no means all to be found in the Holy Book; rather, that Mohammed's
revelations without his explanation and practice would have remained an
enigma. It was understood now that the rules and laws of Islâm were founded
on God's word and on the Sunnah, _i.e._, the "way" pointed out by the
Prophet's word and example. Thus it had been from the moment that Allah had
caused His light to shine over Arabia, and thus it must remain, if human
error was not to corrupt Islâm.

At the moment when this conservative instinct began to assert itself among
the spiritual leaders, so much foreign matter had already been incorporated
into Islâm, that the theory of the sufficiency of Qorân and Sunnah could
not have been maintained without the labelling operation which we have
alluded to. So it was assumed that as surely as Mohammed must have
surpassed his predecessors in perfection and in wonders, so surely must
all the principles and precepts necessary for his community have been
formulated by him. Thus, by a gigantic web of fiction, he became after his
death the organ of opinions, ideas, and interests, whose lawfulness was
recognized by every influential section of the Faithful. All that could not
be identified as part of the Prophet's Sunnah, received no recognition; on
the other hand, all that was accepted had, somehow, to be incorporated into
the Sunnah.

It became a fundamental dogma of Islâm, that the Sunnah was the
indispensable completion of the Qorân, and that both together formed the
source of Mohammedan law and doctrine; so much so that every party assumed
the name of "People of the Sunnah" to express its pretension to orthodoxy.
The _contents_ of the Sunnah, however, was the subject of a great deal of
controversy; so that it came to be considered necessary to make the Prophet
pronounce his authoritative judgment on this difference of opinion. He
was said to have called it a proof of God's special mercy, that within
reasonable limits difference of opinion was allowed in his community. Of
that privilege Mohammedans have always amply availed themselves.

When the difference touched on political questions, especially on the
succession of the Prophet in the government of the community, schism was
the inevitable consequence. Thus arose the party strifes of the first
century, which led to the establishment of the sects of the Shî'ites and
the Khârijites, separate communities, severed from the great whole, that
led their own lives, and therefore followed paths different from those of
the majority in matters of doctrine and law as well as in politics. The
sharpness of the political antithesis served to accentuate the importance
of the other differences in such cases and to debar their acceptance as the
legal consequence of the difference of opinion that God's mercy allowed.
That the political factor was indeed the great motive of separation, is
clearly shown in our own day, now that one Mohammedan state after the other
sees its political independence disappearing and efforts are being made
from all sides to re-establish the unity of the Mohammedan world by
stimulating the feeling of religious brotherhood. Among the most cultivated
Moslims of different countries an earnest endeavour is gaining ground to
admit Shî'ites, Khârijites, and others, formerly abused as heretics, into
the great community, now threatened by common foes, and to regard their
special tenets in the same way as the differences existing between the four
law schools: Hanafites, Mâlikites, Shâfi'ites and Hanbalites, which for
centuries have been considered equally orthodox.

Although the differences that divide these schools at first caused great
excitement and gave rise to violent discussions, the strong catholic
instinct of Islâm always knew how to prevent schism. Each new generation
either found the golden mean between the extremes which had divided the
preceding one, or it recognized the right of both opinions.

Though the dogmatic differences were not necessarily so dangerous to
unity as were political ones, yet they were more apt to cause schism than
discussions about the law. It was essential to put an end to dissension
concerning the theological roots of the whole system of Islâm. Mohammed had
never expressed any truth in dogmatic form; all systematic thinking was
foreign to his nature. It was again the non-Arabic Moslims, especially
those of Christian origin, who suggested such doctrinal questions. At first
they met with a vehement opposition that condemned all dogmatic discussion
as a novelty of the Devil. In the long run, however, the contest of the
conservatives against specially objectionable features of the dogmatists'
discussions forced them to borrow arms from the dogmatic arsenal. Hence a
method with a peculiar terminology came in vogue, to which even the boldest
imagination could not ascribe any connection with the Sunnah of Mohammed.
Yet some traditions ventured to put prophetic warnings on Mohammed's lips
against dogmatic innovations that were sure to arise, and to make him
pronounce the names of a couple of future sects. But no one dared to make
the Prophet preach an orthodox system of dogmatics resulting from the
controversies of several centuries, all the terms of which were foreign to
the Arabic speech of Mohammed's time.

Indeed, all the subjects which had given rise to dogmatic controversy
in the Christian Church, except some too specifically Christian, were
discussed by the _mutakallims_, the dogmatists of Islâm. Free will or
predestination; God omnipotent, or first of all just and holy; God's word
created by Him, or sharing His eternity; God one in this sense, that His
being admitted of no plurality of qualities, or possessed of qualities,
which in all eternity are inherent in His being; in the world to come only
bliss and doom, or also an intermediate state for the neutral. We might
continue the enumeration and always show to the Christian church-historian
or theologian old acquaintances in Moslim garb. That is why Maracci and
Reland could understand Jews and Christians yielding to the temptation
of joining Islâm, and that also explains why Catholic and Protestant
dogmatists could accuse each other of Crypto-mohammedanism.

First They Came for Ayaan.. Don`t Ask for whom the Bell Tolls

Filed under Opinion Editorials, Terrorism around the world, Islamic fundamentalism,
EU and UK - on Friday, February 22, 2008 - By: Chesler, Phyllis pyjamas media

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is begging the EU to undertake
the enormous expense of funding her security.
This article suggests that she has begged in vain;

Taslima Nasrin has been under house arrest for her own protection in India
and has now been advised that she must either accept this or leave the country.
(Nasrin lived in hiding for years in Sweden but chose to leave her European safe haven).

Geert Wilders has been (temporarily?) banished from Holland and his film put on hold.

Kurt Westergaard, the heroic Danish cartoonist, has been in hiding and on the run
for three months. (PJM's own Flemming Rose has covered his plight and informed us of the principled decision of 17 Danish newspapers to reprint the original Mohammed cartoons).

Either the democratic West will have to fund each person, one by one.
Or we will all millions of us at a time have to commit similar acts of resistance.
If we fail to fund, and absent that, fail to resist, our civilization will suffer
a fatal, self-inflicted blow.

Below, please read about Hirsi Ali's current plight, from;
http://www.expatica.com/nl/life_in/feature/EU-politicians-make-empty-promises-to-Hirsi-Al.html
EU politicians make empty promises to Hirsi Ali 15/02/2008 By Vanessa Mock


Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been in Brussels to plead for political backing
for a controversial proposal to get the EU to pay for her protection.
She was invited by French Socialist MEPs, who launched the initiative
to set up a special fund for the former Dutch Parliamentarian
who has received death threats because of her critical views of Islam.

"Today I find myself in the embarrassing position that I have to come to ask for help," she told the European Parliament. "I need you to support this fund to protect people like me whose only crime is free speech."

M^me Hirsi Ali has been living under police protection since the murder of filmmaker
Theo van Gogh in 2004, with whom she made a film about Islam's treatment of women.
A note targeting her by name "Hirshi" was found pinned on van Gogh's body.

The Dutch gov't stopped paying her security bills last year when she left to work in the US.

"I think it was the wrong decision. I am forced to do fundraising and will have to go into hiding when the money runs out," she said simply.

Despite a high-publicity campaign in Brussels, the Somalia-born Hirsi Ali is likely to come away empty-handed. The proposal has received the backing of just one in seven MEPs (85 out of 785) - and just two/three Dutch MEP-s.

A tragedy for Ayaan

"This initiative is going nowhere", says Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, a Dutch MEP
and a former colleague. "It's tragic for Ayaan because she needs security but the EU is not the place to provide it. She is being made to believe in something that does not exist."

The EU fund is the brainchild of French Socialist MEP Benoit Hamon, who says the EU must urgently protect any citizens whose lives are at risk because they exercise the right to speak out. "Europe has to prove it's serious about freedom of expression as a fundamental right, not just as an ideal on paper."

Diplomats however say the idea is unworkable because it would need the political backing
of all 27 member states, whereas providing security for individuals has until now remained
in State hands.

Protection for Wilders?

Many EU politicians would also balk at the idea of footing the bill to protect controversial figures, such as the radical, right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders. "Where do you set the boundaries for who would be covered by this fund" asks Ms Hennis-Plasschaert.

It is telling that even EU Commissioner Nellie Kroes, Ms Hirsi Ali's political mentor
during her early days in The Hague, has given a cautious response.
"She is an extremely courageous woman and deserves support,"

Mrs Kroes, one of the most powerful politicians in Brussels, told RNW.
"But it is still early days, things are being discussed. We have to wait and see."

Shame on the Dutch

Earlier this week, Ms Hirsi Ali was invited by French intellectuals and Socialists in France,
who had called for her to be granted French citizenship so that Paris could pay for her security. They criticised The Hague for suspending her security costs, estimated at Euro 2 million a year.

"As a European, I feel ashamed", said French writer, Bernard-Henri Levy. "Ayaan is a true European, she defends European values of freedom to judge and to express herself and dare to criticise."

Ms Hirsi Ali stressed that her love for the Netherlands was undiminished but that she felt let down.

"The government supported my decision to leave as life had become impossible in the Netherlands and they promised to continue paying for my safety."

This week, the Justice Ministry reiterated that it would resume payment if she returned
from the US but Ms Hirsi Ali says it would be impossible for her to lead a normal life there.
She was forced to leave her previous Dutch apartment after her neighbours filed court proceedings against having such a high-profile resident.

The US has refused to cover the cost because it is against its policy to pay for the safety of individuals.

Who is Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the daughter of a Somali scholar and revolutionary opposition leader Hirsi Magan Isse. ( pro Amerika against the Soviet supported dictator and running for parlementseats )

Her screenplay Submission, and her autobiography Infidel, led to death threats from Muslim organisations. She obtained political asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, where she was parliamentarian for the liberal VVD Party from 2003-6.

A political crisis surrounding the potential stripping of her Dutch citizenship led her to resign and indirectly prompted the fall of the second Balkenende cabinet.

She is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, Wash. DC, US of A.

"Discutir sobre el velo es un error; el debate es sobre moral sexual"

ENTREVISTA: AYAAN HIRSI ALI Ex diputada holandesa
J. M. MARTÍ FONT - París - 13/02/2008 elpais.com

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, nacida en Mogadiscio (Somalia) hace 38 años, fue diputada liberal en Holanda. Su crítica radical del Islam y su defensa de los derechos de las mujeres le han valido una condena a muerte dictada por los sectores fundamentalistas. Ahora vive en una especie de clandestinidad, escondida y protegida, y considera que ha sido traicionada por el Gobierno holandés que en su momento le ofreció protección. Por ello lleva a cabo una campaña para que el Parlamento Europeo garantice la protección de quienes se expresan contra la amenaza teocrática que, en su opinión, subyace en la sociedad musulmana.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam, Catholicism and democracy
Via europe.courrierinternational.com/eurotopics ;
The former Dutch deputy Ayaan Hirsi Ali analyses the links between democracy and religion in an interview with Jose Maria Marti.
"As a group of principles, Islam is very consistent, very coherent,
very simple and not at all compatible with liberal democracy.
The principles of liberal democracy consider human life an end in itself,
whereas Islam says that a satisfactory life can only be obtained by submitting oneself to the will of God. ... Catholicism isn't compatible with democracy either, but Christian societies have established a separation between Church and State. As a result, this religion does not have the power to punish those who fail to respect its principles. ...

I think that the majority of Muslims could assimilate the principles of democracy
if they had the same debate as the Catholics, accepting that dogmas can be questioned
and that these questions can lead to answers that won't please them."
...

Pregunta. Usted no distingue entre el Islam moderado y el Islam radical.

Respuesta. Yo hago una distinción entre Islam, en cuanto a un conjunto de principios, y los musulmanes como gente. Los musulmanes son diversos. Algunos se convierten a la democracia o quieren integrarse como ciudadanos en las sociedades occidentales; algunos rechazan la democracia y otros toman este rechazo hasta el grado extremo de los ataques terroristas. Pero no sabemos lo que piensa la gran mayoría de musulmanes. Por otro lado, el Islam como conjunto de principios es muy consistente, muy coherente, muy simple y no es compatible con la democracia liberal. Los principios de la democracia liberal toman la vida humana como un fin en si mismo y el Islam dice que sólo si te sometes a los deseos de Dios, tendrás una vida satisfactoria. Los principios democráticos establecen que el hombre y la mujer son iguales frente a la ley, los principios islámicos dicen que la mujer está subordinada al hombre o que quien practica la homosexualidad debe morir.

P. También la religión católica establece principios antidemocráticos.

R . Sí, porque la cristiandad tampoco es compatible con la democracia, pero las sociedades cristianas han establecido la separación entre Iglesia y Estado, y la religión ya no tiene el poder de castigar a quienes no cumplen sus principios.

P. ¿Cómo analiza usted el debate sobre el velo en Turquía? ¿Democracia frente a laicidad?

R .La secularización de Turquía, que se hizo de arriba abajo, está cambiando y la sociedad se hace más islámica, incluso islamista, de abajo hacia arriba. El partido de Erdogan, era en su origen muy radical y fue reprimido y prohibido por los militares. Cambió de estrategia y empezó por abajo y buscando un consenso popular. Ahora Turquía se está moviendo del secularismo hacia la religión. Pero mi opinión es que discutir sobre el velo es un error, tanto en Turquía como en Europa. No es la cuestión. El verdadero debate es sobre la moral sexual que el velo representa, que no es otra que la mujer es responsable de la sexualidad del hombre. Debemos cubrir nuestro cuerpo para que él no se excite; debemos permanecer encerradas en casa, para que él no se excite. Esta moral, que pone toda la responsabilidad sobre la mujer, es lo que hay que discutir.

P. ¿Piensa usted que la población musulmana de Europa se dirige hacia una separación de la religión y el Estado?

R .Creo que la mayoría de los musulmanes asimilarán los principios de la democracia si tienen el mismo debate que los católicos tuvieron, que no es más que aceptar que sus dogmas son puestos en cuestión y que de estas preguntas se derivan respuestas que no les van a gustar. Para que este proceso sea más fácil, hay que proteger la libertad de expresión.

P. ¿A los partidos políticos tradicionales les es rentable tomar posiciones firmes frente a estas amenazas?

R .En el caso de Holanda, tanto los democristianos como los socialdemócratas han acabado dependiendo en determinadas circunscripciones del voto de las minorías musulmanas. En las grandes ciudades el voto musulmán va muy buscado. En Francia, donde la minoría musulmana aun no vota como tal, esto no tiene tanta importancia.

P. ¿Y en España?

R . La reacción del Gobierno español de retirar sus tropas de Irak después del atentado de Madrid, fue una mala decisión, porque dio la razón a los elementos más radicales. Por otro lado, la mayoría de los inmigrantes magrebies que llegan a España vienen a trabajar en el campo, no tienen el mismo tipo de dependencia de las ayudas y subvenciones estatales que hay en otros sitios de Europa. La población musulmana no tiene ningún impacto electoral.

Sarkozy peut naturaliser Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Rama Yade: "Ce sera eux ou nous. Ne pas les soutenir, c'est négliger nos valeurs. Les oublier, c'est oublier qui nous sommes. Nous sommes à un tournant civilisationnel"

" ze niet ondersteunen, is onze waarden verwaarlozen. Ze vergeten, is vergeten wie wij zijn. Wij zijn aan de omwenteling van een beschaving." Het zal zijn, zij of wij.



et interview de Bernard-Henri Lévy par Julie Coste, 8 février 2008;
Le philosophe BHL explique à nouvelobs.com pourquoi il organise un meeting, dimanche soir à Paris, pour Mme Ayaan Hirsi Ali, cette ancienne députée des Pays-Bas sous le coup les fatawa pour avoir critiqué l'islam.

Pourquoi ce meeting ?

- Parce je crois que nous avons un devoir de solidarité avec ceux qui se battent, face à l’islamisme radical, pour les valeurs de tolérance, de liberté et de laïcité. Souvenez-vous de ce que nous faisions, avec Sartre et Foucault, pour les dissidents soviétiques. Souvenez-vous des mobilisations, des chaînes de solidarité, en faveur de Sakharov et des autres. Eh bien Ayaan, c’est comme Sakharov. Il faut, autour d’elle et de celles et ceux qui mènent le même combat qu’elle, une chaîne de solidarité du type de celles que nous formions autour de Sakharov. Le combat commence ici. Aujourd'hui.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali est-elle toujours menacée de mort ?

- Oui. Plus que jamais. Et le scandale des scandales c’est que l’administration des Pays-Bas, qui n’en est pas à une vilénie près, vient de lui retirer sa protection rapprochée lorsqu’elle quitte le territoire hollandais. C’est cette décision qui, pour Philippe Val, Dominique Sopo, Caroline Fourest, moi-même, a été le vrai déclencheur: il faut protéger Ayaan; il est impensable qu’une femme condamnée à mort parce qu’elle défend nos valeurs (elle dit elle-même, explicitement, qu’elle défend les valeurs de la laïcité à la française) soit livrée, sans défense, à ceux qui veulent la tuer.

La secrétaire d'Etat aux droits de l'Homme, Rama Yade, doit participer à la manifestation de dimanche. Qu'attendez-vous, qu'attendent les organisateurs du meeting, de l'Etat français ?

- La plupart d’entre nous n’avons pas voté pour Nicolas Sarkozy. Mais nous avons entendu la promesse qu’il a faite, pendant sa campagne, quand il a dit: "moi Président, plus une femme au monde ne sera persécutée, martyrisée, sans trouver en France asile, soutien et espoir". Non seulement nous avons entendu cet engagement, mais nous l’avons pris au sérieux. Et même au pied de la lettre. S’il veut, il peut. Il peut même agir très vite. Et sa ministre, Rama Yade, le lui a d’ailleurs rappelé dans un article récemment paru dans Le Monde. Il peut quoi, au juste ? Lui donner asile, d’abord. Mais surtout, et c’est ce que nous demandons, lui donner la nationalité française. Ne serait-il pas paradoxal que cette femme, cette grande dame, cette incarnation des valeurs de l’Europe et, je le répète, de la France, soit contrainte de s’exiler aux Etats-Unis ?

Blog de Caroline Fourest : Tous autour d'Ayaan Hirsi Ali le 10 février à Paris

Avec Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Protégeons la liberté de penser

Le 10 février, à Paris, se tiendra un grand meeting de soutien autour de Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Menacée de mort pour avoir écrit le scénario du film « Soumission », ayant côuté la vie au réalisateur Théo Van Gogh, cette ancienne députée des Pays-Bas d’origine somalienne n’est plus libre de ses mouvements.

Les menaces, ajoutées aux insultes pour avoir osé « offensé » l’Islam, l’ont conduite à se réfugier aux Etats-Unis. En vertu de quoi, le gouvernement des Pays-Bas refuse de continuer à financer sa protection.

L’Europe est en train de perdre l’une des plus courageuses dissidentes de l’islamisme.

À l’initiative de Benoît Hamon et députés socialistes, près de soixante-dix députés européens ont signé une question écrite souhaitant que l’Union européenne finance la protection d’Ayaan, « considérant que l'UE est fondée sur les valeurs de la démocratie et de l'Etat de droit, et que l'intégrisme religieux, dés lors qu'il menace de mort quiconque ose critiquer les symboles ou l’idéologie d’une religion, menace directement les libertés individuelles fondamentales ».

Il faudrait la majorité du parlement pour obtenir ce premier acte fort de l’Union européenne contre l’intégrisme.

Le gouvernement français, qui prend la présidence de l’Union européenne en juillet, peut y contribuer de manière décisive.

Il peut aussi choisir de lui accorder la nationalité française et donc la protéger.

Tout dépend de notre mobilisation.

Soutenons Ayaan. Et à travers elle tous les opposants à l’islamisme menacés. Tous sont vulnérables chaque fois qu’on les oublie : Taslima Nasreen (poétesse) a dû être exfiltrée de son domicile à Calcutta à cause de manifestations enragées contre elle, Kurt Westergaard (le dessinateur danois ayant représenté Mahomet avec une bombe dans son turban) vit constamment surveillé, Robert Redeker (professeur) a dû quitter son lycée et a vu sa vie bouleversée suite à une tribune critique envers Mahomet, Mohamed Sifaoui (journaliste algérien réfugié en France) voit sa protection remise en question.

Pour eux, pour nous, ne laissons pas le silence faire le jeu de ceux qui cherchent à intimider les esprits libres.

Le Meeting aura lieu le 10 février à 20 H à l’Ecole normale supérieure (annexe, amphi Jules Ferry), 29 rue d’Ulm 75005 (venir dès 19h en raison du dispositif de sécurité)

La soirée est organisée par : La Revue ProChoix, La Règle du Jeu, Libération, Sos Racisme et Charlie Hebdo

En présence de

Darina al-Joundi
Pascal Bruckner
Monique Canto-Sperber
Caroline Fourest
Benoît Hamon
Laurent Joffrin
Julia Kristeva
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Dominique Sopo
Philippe Val

Ségolène Royal
Rama Yade

Et bien sûr Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Représentants du peuple, daignez me répondre :

L' histoire se répète :
Time for Parliament to take a stand; EDM 2188 25.10.2007

That this House, recognising that freedom of speech within the law and freedom from violence and intimidation are indispensable preconditions of a free society, deeply regrets the decision of the Dutch Parliament and Government to withdraw protection abroad from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the author, film-maker and former politician; and urges both bodies to reverse this decision forthwith.

Infidèle ?

Volksvertegenwoordigers, ik verzoek u mij te antwoorden.

irez- vous dire à vos commettants que vous avez repoussé ce nom de peuple ? ... Eh ! ne voyez-vous pas que le nom de représentants du peuple vous est nécessaire, parce qu'il vous attache le peuple, cette masse imposante, sans laquelle vous ne seriez que des individus, de faibles roseaux que l'on briserait un à un ? Ne voyez-vous pas qu'il vous faut le nom de peuple, parce qu'il donne à connaître au peuple que nous avons lié notre sort au sien; ce qui lui apprendra à reposer sur nous toutes ses pensées, toutes ses espérances ? Plus habiles que nous, les héros bataves qui fondèrent la liberté de leurs pays prirent le nom de gueux; ils ne voulurent que ce titre, parce que le mépris de leurs tyrans avait prétendu les en flétrir; et ce titre, en leur attachant cette classe immense que l'aristocratie et le despotisme avilissaient, fut à la fois leur force, leur gloire et le gage de leur succès. Les amis de la liberté choisissent le nom qui les sert le mieux, et non celui qui les flatte le plus : ils s'appelleront les remontrants en Amérique, les pâtres en Suisse, les gueux dans les Pays-bas; ils se pareront des injures de leurs ennemis; ils leur ôteront le pouvoir de les humilier, avec des expressions dont ils auront su s'honorer. Mirabeau: Second discours sur la dénomination de l'Assemblée 16 juin 1789 http://www.unice.fr/ILF-CNRS/politext/Mirabeau/MirabeauTexte.htm OMMIS DETERMINATIO a dit notre grand compatriote Spinoza de l'Estonien negatto : chaque disposition de mot est une disposition, une restriction, une négation. Le Néerlandais est non-Allemanger est est. Relié inséparablement dans la notion liberté sa disposition et la négation. "Assez pour... "l'accent sur le postitieve, la possibilité ou le droit met pour faire quelque chose de précieux . "assez de" la négation s'exprime, et dans la signification le plus générale du mot l'absence d'une entrave est voulue dire , d'une charge. Mais entre les deux côtés de la notion, entre "assez pour... "et" de "une corrélation existe assez : une possibilité afin de faire suppose l'absence d'une entrave. La liberté peut exprimer une relation entre nations une relation entre les individus d'un groupe, de la communauté, de la nation ou se trouve mutuellement, par ailleurs, et peut dans l'individu maîtriser les passions par la compréhension raisonnable signifier. La manière qui se maîtrise, est libre. De liberté existe minimum chez l'esclave. De lui, il est nié, ce que le noyau de l'homme constitue : la personnalité. Il n'est pas considéré comme un être inspiré, mais comme une chose qui peut être la propriété d'autre, et vendue peut héritée, jamais un but dans lui-même n'est, mais un outil pour les souhaits et griller son maître. De liberté n'est pas maximum de cette terre. Chaque homme a été lié. Le philosofen grec et les theologen médiévaux ont considéré le dieu uniquement comme essentiellement libre, absolu, sans restriction, et elle utilisent l'"autarcie" de cela pour lui le mot grec la "satisfaction de soi" signifie. Uniquement le dieu possède l'autarcie, uniquement le dieu est totalement et absolument indépendant. Dans nos textes aînés, la liberté signifie surtout un emploi entre nations, l'absence dans une nation violence fait de la dominance pour une nation étrange. Une nation n'est pas libre qui est opprimée par une autre nation qui l'esclave et l'instrument sont du arbitraire de l'oppresseur, et la souffrance appartient pour cette perte à la liberté aux coeur douleurs aînés et les plus profonds de l'homme. La signification d'une "nation libre", la liberté individuelle transparente "dans une communauté primitive, si beaucoup est même est une notion plus composée. La liberté personnelle qui est accordée aux membres d'une communauté, n'est pas déterminée seulement par un jeu purement des relations de force, mais ne dépend aussi pas des traditions et des compréhensions, des sentiments religieux et moraux qui vivent dans cette nation. Même sensée est le cadeau inestimable qui a donné la vieille soudure d'enfer à la postérité. En Grèce, du cinquième pour le christus l'homme lui lui-même se transforme en problème. "Sont grand toutes sortes de et les miracles de la le monde, mais le plus grand miracle est l'homme lui lui-même". Les questions sont posées au sujet de l'origine des valeurs culturelles et spirituelles la phrase, des sentiments politiques religieux et moraux. Et cette opposition répétés parti qui sous l'un ou autre forme par les siècles, est soulevée ici pour la première fois : sa religion, se trouve, droit et moeurs dans leur origine et l'être inachevé réduire, eux s'est enracinée dans humaine la nature, ou bien est eux un créé conscient de la raison jusqu'à réalisation du propre intérêt individuel : résider eux sur la convention, comme les grecs exprimer. Certains philosophes grecs souscrivent à la deuxième opinion : l'état réside sur le pouvoir. Le droit ordonne est ce que le détenteur du pouvoir. Les libertés se cachent d'une convention, d'un contrat, par forte le propre intérêt accordé faible, par faible accepté comme protection contre le arbitraire de forte. La religion est un moyen de pouvoir. La moralité et le droit sont relativement, non-généralement, là eux une relation s'exprime jusqu'aux formes d'état toujours changeantes, en vigueur. Contre cette conception retour lui Griekenland's plus grands philosophes, Plato et Aristoteles. Le droit et l'injustice, dans leur être ne sont pas le produit du pouvoir de la le gouvernement, de la volonté du législateur. Au contraire, les lois réelles, par l'état gedecreteerd, doivent toujours être confrontées au non écrits lois dans 'le s gens coeur. L'état, au fond et l'origine, ne sont pas un creation de la politique consciemment humaine, mais comme l'homme avec le discours doué est essentiel, ainsi il dans la communauté un être vivant est par nature, seulement dans l'état il peut atteindre ce making plein moral qui constitue la phrase de son existence. Ceci ne signifie toutefois ni pour Plato, ni pour Aristoteles qui l'état crée également pour chaque homme la condition, la phrase du son ses, droit sa personnalité à réaliser. Leur universalisme éthique est limité par leur nationalité grecque. Le barbare - ce n'est pas l'étranger - et l'esclave est des membres à part entière de la communauté. Selon Aristoteles, l'esclavage existe par nature, l'utilité de l'esclave se trouve seulement dans sa force physique, son sort est la domesticité. Jusqu'à ce qu'une notion généralement en vigueur des Droits de l'Homme ait le Stoicisme lui sublime. Il base sa compréhension philosophique dans l'unité de l'univers.

Wilt ge uw opdrachtgevers zeggen, dat ge niet "volk" genoemd wilt worden? ... Ziet ge dan niet, dat die naam "Volksvertegen- wordigers voor u nodig is, omdat hij u met het volk verbindt, met deze geweldige massa, zonder welke gij slechts individuen zoudt zijn, zwakke rietstengels, die men de een na de ander breken zou...