Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
October 26, 2009
The right to profess, practice, and promote one’s religious beliefs is a founding principle of our nation.
It is the first liberty mentioned in our Bill of Rights, and it is a freedom guaranteed to all people in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Our founders made an understandable oversight, relying on the traditional acceptance of institutions popularly considered to be religions, perhaps because they did not anticipate the development of modern transportation with its resultant increase in immigration which brought Islam to the West.
Unfortunately, Islam does not fit the pattern for two reasons. First, it is a war cult, not a legitimate religion, being founded for a mercenary mission. Second, it is intolerant and violent, denying others the tolerance and respect it demands from them.
We commend Jordan’s role in initiating the common word dialogue…
The Common Word Between Us and You, a missive from the Ulema to Pope Benedict XVI, is a pious fraud. Christianity and Islam have nothing in common except what Islam plagiarized from Judaism & Christianity,
These important efforts build on the shared values and common concerns of faith communities to sow the seeds of lasting peace.
Christianity values life and peace. Islam values war and death. We have no shared values.
Now, some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree. The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution.
Anti-defamation policies have nothing to do with protecting freedom of religion. Their purpose is to protect Islam from truthful criticism. The OIC and their allies are complaining of and campaigning for the criminalization of “negative stereotyping of religions”, particularly association of terrorism with Islam.
But an individual’s ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others’ freedom of speech. The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse.
The proper practice of Islam involves warfare for the purpose of making it dominant. Islam perceives our freedom of expression as an impairment of their demonic duty to enforce Islamic law, which prescribes the death penalty for any negative expression about Allah, Muhammad and their doctrines & practices.
Based on our own experience, we are convinced that the best antidote to intolerance is not the defamation of religion’s approach of banning and punishing offensive speech, but rather, a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression.
In its practical implementation, “proactive government outreach to minority religious groups” means appeasement of Islam.
So it is our hope that the International Religious Freedom Report will encourage existing religious freedom movements around the world and promote dialogue among governments and within societies on how best to accommodate religious communities and protect each individual’s right to believe or not believe, as that individual sees fit.
If the Secretary would read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, she might learn that only Muslims have rights. How can we have rights when our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims?
The secretary called on Assistant Secretary Michael Posner to elaborate further on the report
Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
QUESTION: Can I ask – the Secretary was quite strong in her comments about the defamation laws that – U.S. opposition to – well, perhaps not defamation laws, but I think this refers to something at the Human Rights Council. Is that – that’s correct? Can you elaborate a little bit more on that? And I thought it was sufficiently watered down or defeated that – and that that met your concerns.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: There are really two separate issues that have been raised and sometimes conflated at the United Nations. I was part of the delegation last month at the Human Rights Council, where we actually joined with Egypt in promoting a resolution on freedom of expression that did, in fact, meet our concerns. There was a debate in the context of that about how to deal with issues of defamation, and we agreed after much negotiation, much discussion, that there is a legitimate subject as to whether or not an individual, an individual of any particular faith, can be defamed and whether that kind of harassment or discrimination is to be condemned. It clearly is.
Assistant Secretary Posner wants us to believe that the concept of defamation was excluded from the recently passed Freedom of Opinion and Expression Resolution. Like most politicians, his words are deceptive. The concept is present, slightly disguised. [Emphasis added.]
6. Recognizes the positive contribution that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, particularly by the media, including through information and communication technologies such as the Internet, and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information, can make to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to preventing human rights abuses, but expresses regret about the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and about the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content;
“Related intolerance” is a code phrase for “Islamophobia”, which is a code word for any negative expression about Islam, which is considered defamation. “false images and negative stereotypes” and “racist” are codes for criticism of Islam. If you have been reading my posts, you know that those codes refer to the Danish Cartoons and Fitna, the short video documentary by Geert Wilders. See You’ve Been Mooned for the proof.
There’s a second resolution that was promoted – that’s been promoted by the Islamic Conference at the UN, which is a broader defamation of religion resolution. It’s being debated, in fact, in one form right now. And it goes, we think, too far in restricting free speech – the notion that a religion can be defamed and that any comments that are negative about that religion can constitute a violation of human rights, to us, violates the core principle of free speech which is so central to us in our own system.
There is one little detail he does not tell us: that other forum is working on a protocol to ICERD, which will be enforcible international law, not a non-binding resolution. .
When asked about misogyny, whether it was of religious origin:
ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: No, I reject that. I think the major religions of the world are all predicated based on assumptions of humanity and ethical behavior. The fact that people take a kind of extreme view and interpret religions in a way that promotes violence and discrimination, I think, is an aberration. That’s part of the purpose of this report. I think we are all mindful of the fact that people of deep faith throughout the world are driven by and motivated by their religious beliefs. We want to encourage that. And we want to discourage people who misuse that faith in a way that’s going to undermine basic human rights.
He thinks that all major religions are predicated on humanity and ethical behavior. He thinks that extremists interpret Islam in a way that promotes violence and discrimination, which are abberations. Does he actually know anything about Islam? I doubt it. In Islam, women are chatle property, literally fields to be plowed. Muslims have Allah’s permission to beat their wives. Women are inferior in intelligence and religion.
Violence and discrimination are also intrinsic and foundational. Mr. Posner would know that if he had read Book O of Reliance of the Traveller.
First, religious freedom is the birthright of all people, regardless of their faith or lack thereof. Enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments, the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate one’s faith must be respected by all societies and governments. The United States takes this obligation seriously. “America will always stand,” the President said in his Ramadan message to Muslims, “for the universal rights of all people to speak their mind, practice their religion, contribute fully to society, and have confidence in the rule of law.”
There is an absolute right to profess, practice and propagate, regardless of the substance of the faith; its doctrines and practices. If the doctrines include supremacism & triumphalism and the practices include conquest, genocide & terrorism, that’s ok with our Department of State. It ain’t ok with me; is it with you? What they did in Beslan and are doing in Darfur is foundational to Islam. It is intrinsic and inseverable; impossible to reform. Who gives a damn? Certainly not our government.
Al-Anfal 39 commands warfare against pagans until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. Al Anfal 12 declares that Allah will cast terror and orders Muslims to decapitate their victims and cut off their fingers and toes. Al-Anfal 60 orders Muslims to build armies and stock up on weapons with which to terrify their enemies. Al-Anfal 67 informs us that while Moe wanted ransom money, Allah prefers great slaughter. At-Taubah 29 commands Muslims to make war on Christians & Jews until they are subjugated and extorted. Moe confirmed the order by declaring that he was ordered to fight with men until they became Muslims and that their blood and property were not sacred to Muslims until they did so. Those doctrines are foundational to Islam [3:7], can’t be abandoned and can’t be changed.
By expressing agreement with the false concept of an absolute right to Jihad, our Federal Government is engaging in civilizational suicide.
`Multilateral, Global, and Regional Challenges to Religious Freedom
In addition to these country-by-country concerns, the wide spectrum of efforts to undermine the right to religious freedom extends to multilateral, regional, and global fora. For instance, over the past decade, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an inter-governmental organization comprising 57 states with majority or significant Muslim populations, has worked through the United Nations (UN) to advance the concept of “defamation of religions” by introducing annual resolutions on this subject at the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly. While the United States deplores actions that exhibit disrespect for particular religious traditions, including Islam, we do not agree with the “defamation of religions” concept because it is inconsistent with the freedoms of religion and expression.
“While the United States deplores actions that exhibit disrespect for particular religious traditions, including Islam”; then the United States deplores this blog post. because it tells the truth about Islam. Since when is truth defamatory? What is wrong; deplorable about naming and shaming the enemy?
The United States understands the primary concern of the resolution to be the negative stereotyping of members of religious groups, particularly minority groups, and the contribution of such stereotypes to disrespect and discrimination. The United States shares concerns about the impact of negative stereotypes and believes that such stereotyping, particularly when promoted by community, religious, or government leaders, contributes to disrespect, discrimination, and in some cases, to violence. The United States, however, believes the best way for governments to address these issues is to develop robust legal regimes to address acts of discrimination and bias-inspired crime; to condemn hateful ideology and proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups; and to defend vigorously the rights of individuals to practice their religion freely and to exercise their freedom of expression.
“The United States shares concerns about the impact of negative stereotypes and believes that such stereotyping, particularly when promoted by community, religious, or government leaders, contributes to disrespect, discrimination, and in some cases, to violence.” Jihad, genocide & terrorism are intrinsic sacraments of Islam. That is a fact, not stereotyping. The terror attacks at Beslan, London, Madrid & Washington D.C. were perpetrated by young Muslim Males who shouted “Allahhu Akbar” as they murdered innocent victims. Only a damn fool can tolerate the continued propagation of the damnable doctrines which motivated those men to murder for the promise of eternity in a celestial bordello.
“To condemn hateful ideology”? Why don’t they condemn Islam? Don’t they know that it curses us and declares perpetual war against us? Don’t they know that it declares genocide as a prerequisite to Judgment Day, when they hope to gain admission to the celestial bordello?
“Proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups”; those are code words for appeasement. A lot of good that foolishness has done Israel in the last 60 years. Are these fools incapable of learning?
With their lips, our Department of State pays lip service to freedom of speech. With their pen, they co-authored a UNHRC resolution which erodes that freedom, while ignoring the composition of a protocol to ICERD which will criminalize all criticism of Islam, effectively nullifying our First Amendment.
Source: Open Congress
H.Res.763 – Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations resolutions on the “defamation of religions” are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their religious beliefs.
A blog post about a hearing held recently by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission mentioned a Sense of the House resolution submitted by Representative Ted Poe,. Republican, of Texas and 12 Co-Sponsors:
Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5], Rep. James Forbes [R, VA-4], Rep. James Forbes [R, VA-4], Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2], Rep. Duncan Hunter [R, CA-52], Rep. Bob Inglis [R, SC-4], Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5], Rep. Jeff Miller [R, FL-1], Rep. Joseph Pitts [R, PA-16], Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18], Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1], Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1], Rep. Christopher Smith [R, NJ-4] and Rep. Zach Wamp [R, TN-3].
The resolution was introduced September 22 ’09 and referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
No news or blog coverage of the issue was found in the news section of the web page. Only 36 people had viewed it. A poll in the right sidebar shows 100% viewer support.
CRS summary from Thomas.
SUMMARY AS OF:
Underscores the value of respectful speech while affirming that the freedoms of speech and religious exercise are integral to free societies and human dignity.
Urges the Secretary of State to make every effort to defeat the passage of resolutions on the “defamation of religions” at the United Nations and other resolutions or international instruments that threaten the free and peaceful exchange of ideas, beliefs, and truth claims.
Calls on the United Nations (U.N.) to abandon efforts to adopt the flawed concept of “defamation of religions.”
Urges U.N. member states to focus on protecting the fundamental freedom of individuals to peacefully express their religious beliefs and to avoid supporting resolutions that threaten freedom of expression.
The text of the resolution follows, as found at Thomas.
111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. RES. 763
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations resolutions on the `defamation of religions’ are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their religious beliefs.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 22, 2009
Mr. POE of Texas (for himself, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, and Mr. INGLIS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations resolutions on the `defamation of religions’ are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their religious beliefs.
Whereas since 1999, the United Nations has annually passed a resolution on the `defamation of religions’ in the Human Rights Council (previously the Commission on Human Rights) and in the General Assembly;
Whereas unlike traditional defamation laws, which punish false statements of fact that harm individual persons, measures prohibiting the `defamation of religions’ punish the peaceful criticism of ideas;
Whereas United Nations resolutions on the `defamation of religions’ contradict United States Constitutional protections of free speech and the free exercise of religion;
Whereas the concept of `defamation of religions’ is fundamentally inconsistent with the principles outlined in the United Nations’ founding documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms the protection of persons, rather than ideas;
Whereas Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that `Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance';
Whereas Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that `Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers';
Whereas the sponsor of these United Nations resolutions, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, has indicated that it is seeking to create a legally binding mechanism to combat the `defamation of religions';
Whereas such resolutions provide international support for domestic anti-blasphemy laws in some countries;
Whereas domestic anti-blasphemy laws are often used by governments to punish the peaceful expression of disfavored religious beliefs and ideas;
Whereas the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has confirmed that there is no international consensus on the concept of `defamation of religions’, and multiple United Nations Special Rapporteurs have acknowledged that the difficulties in providing an objective definition of the term `defamation of religions’ at the international level make the whole concept open to abuse;
Whereas the United States Constitution does not guarantee, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not recognize, the right to have one’s beliefs protected from challenge or criticism, or the right not to be offended;
Whereas existing legal instruments already address discrimination, personal defamation, and incitement to violence in ways that are more carefully focused to address those specific problems without unduly threatening the rights of speech and religious free exercise; and
Whereas legal efforts alone cannot foster an environment of respect and religious freedom, and education and public diplomacy are vital tools in the protection of a peaceful and robust exchange of ideas and beliefs: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
(1) underscores the value of respectful speech and civil dialogue, at the same time that it affirms that the freedoms of speech and religious free exercise are integral to the health of free societies and the dignity of the human person;
(2) strongly urges the Secretary of State to make every effort to defeat the passage of future resolutions on the `defamation of religions’ at the United Nations, and other resolutions or international instruments that would threaten the free and peaceful exchange of ideas, beliefs, and truth claims;
(3) calls on the United Nations to abandon all efforts to adopt or affirm the flawed concept of `defamation of religions'; and
(4) urges fellow Member States of the United Nations to focus on protecting the fundamental freedom of individuals to peacefully express their religious beliefs, and to avoid supporting resolutions that threaten the freedom of expression.
After reading the resolution and pasting its text into this blog post, I suspended my writing, and went immediately to http://www.congress.org/ where I entered my Zip Code and clicked the Federal Officials link, subsequently sending a strongly worded email to President Obama, my Senators and my Representative urging them to duplicate the resolution in the Senate and get it passed.
Keeping and maintaining our Representative Republic; maintaining and enforcing our Constitution and preserving the Bill of Rights is up to us. Nobody else will do it for us. We must speak out on the issue of significant threats to our rights. The pending protocol to ICERD and Defamation Resolution are threats to our right of free expression, which we must strenuously oppose with all possible vigor.
I urge my fellow citizens to click the link to congress.org and send emails to their Representative & Senators. I urge citizens of the European Union to contact their MP and MEP demanding that they oppose the protocol and resolution. Get it done!
Alec Rawls exposes continued Park Service posturing about the design of the Flight 93 monument. Our federal government continues to suffer from a severe truth defecit. If they truly intended to memorialize the heroic passengers who tried to preserve their lives against certain death and prevent an exacerbated national disaster in our nation's capitol, it could be done simply and less expensively. A retired 757 or similar fusilage, parked at the crash site, oriented along the flight path could serve as a theatre for showing the Flight 93 movie. I can not imagine a better monument. Let's roll!
From Error Theory: The original Crescent of Embrace memorial to Flight 93 faced less than 2° from Mecca. That made it a mihrab, the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. (Some mihrabs are pointed-arch shaped, but the classic mihrab is crescent shaped.) The Park Service dismissed concern about the Mecca-oriented crescent on grounds that the construction drawings had not yet been finalized. “Those trees could move fifty feet, or three hundred feet,” said Project Manager Jeff Reinbold in the Spring of 2006, as if this kind of “tweaking” would make any difference (Crescent of Betrayal Ch.8 p.145-6). The construction drawings have now been released, and yes, they moved the lower tip of the half-mile wide crescent about 300 feet, enough to change the orientation of the crescent by about 4.5°. Instead of pointing less than 2° north of Mecca, the giant Islamic-shaped crescent now points less than 3° south of Mecca. Here is the original Crescent of Embrace: “Qibla” is the direction to Mecca, which you can verify using any online Mecca-direction calculator (just type in Somerset PA). A person standing between the tips of the giant crescent and facing into the center of the crescent (red arrow) would be facing 1.8° north of Mecca, ± 0.1°. Here is one of the new construction drawings: Instead of facing a titch north of Mecca, the giant crescent now faces a titch south of Mecca (2.7° south ± 0.1°). As with the original Crescent design, the upper crescent tip is the end of the 50’ tall Entry Portal Wall and the lower crescent tip is the last of the 50’ tall Maple trees on the bottom. The landscape overlays make the details hard to see in the thumbnail image above, but at full resolution they are fully legible. (Copy of source PDF, without the superimposed orientations lines here. Large file warning. Graphic is on p. 30 of 233.) The Park Service was SUPPOSED to remove the Islamic symbol shapes When architect Paul Murdoch’s winning Crescent of Embrace design was announced in September 2005, it appeared to show a bare naked Islamic crescent and star-flag planted atop the crash site: Burned by the resulting firestorm of protest, the Park Service to agreed to get rid of the Islamic symbol shapes, but they never did. They added an extra arc of trees, and they call it a broken circle now, but the unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is still a giant Islamic shaped crescent. This is explained on the Park Service’s own website. The extra arc of trees is explicitly described as a broken off part of the circle:
In summary, the memorial is shaped in a circular fashion, and the circle is symbolically “broken” or missing trees in two places, depicting the flight path of the plane, and the crash site.
Those two breaks are the two ends of the extra arc of trees: The extra arc of trees extends from blue circle to blue circle, marking the two “breaks” in the circle referred to in the Park Service’s official explanation of the broken-circle design. One is where the flight path breaks the circle (left), the other is near the crash site (center). What is symbolically left standing (the unbroken part of the circle) is just this: Remove the symbolically broken off parts, and you get the original Crescent of Embrace design. The only change is that the crescent has now been rotated clockwise a few degrees. In the construction plans it faces slightly south of Mecca instead of slightly north of Mecca. For a parallel, imagine airline security discovering a terror bomber, then playing with the fit his suicide vest before escorting him to his plane. They said they were going to remove the giant crescent. They claim they HAVE removed it, but they haven’t. Symbolically, the design remains completely unchanged. The terrorists are still depicted as smashing our peaceful circle and turning it into a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca. The giant crescent is actually a mihrab Here is the mihrab at the Great Mosque in Cordoba Spain. Face into the crescent to face Mecca, just like the crescent memorial to Flight 93: Confronted with evidence that the Crescent of Embrace is actually designed to be the world’s largest mosque, the Park Service sought advice from a pair of Muslim scholars. Both acknowledged the almost exact Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent and both offered overtly dishonest excuses for it. One said not to worry about the likeness to an Islamic mihrab because no one has ever seen a mihrab this BIG before:
…most mihrabs are small, rarely larger than the figure of a man, although some of the more ornamental ones can be larger, but nothing as large at the crescent found in the site design. It is unlikely that most Muslims would walk into the area of the circle/crescent and see a mihrab because it is well beyond their limit of experience.
Right. That’s why everybody scratches their head at Mt. Rushmore. No one has ever seen Abraham Lincoln so BIG before. They just can’t figure it out. To be fooled by this excuse, you have to really really want to be fooled. The other Muslim scholar said not to worry, the crescent cannot be seen as mihrab unless it points exactly at the Kaaba:
Mihrab orientation is either correct or not. It cannot be off by some degrees.
In fact, a mihrab does NOT have to point exactly at Mecca, for the simple reason that, throughout most of Islamic history, Muslims in far-flung parts of the world had no accurate way to determine the direction to Mecca. As a result, it was established as a matter of religious principle that what matters is intent to face Mecca. This was recently affirmed by Saudi religious authorities, after Meccans realized that even most of their local mosques do not face directly towards the Kaaba. “It does not affect the prayers” assured the Islamic Affairs Ministry. Faced with evidence of an Islamic plot, why would the Park Service send this evidence exclusively to Muslims for appraisal? Have they forgotten who attacked us on 9/11? The Service has long since been apprised of the patent dishonesties retailed by its two Muslim advisors but they don’t care. They wanted to be lied to, they knew where to go to be lied to, and they got what they wanted.
Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey
So where are the patriotic stalwarts like Michelle Malkin whose objections were instrumental in getting the Park Service to agree to remove the Islamic symbol shapes in the first place? If they knew in 2005 that the symbolic outcome of 9/11 should not be a giant Islamic shaped crescent why are they silent about this exact same symbolism today, after THEY were promised that this perversion would be removed? Ed Morrissey urged his readers “to tell the National Parks Service and the Secretary of the Interior to rethink their plans,” promising for his own part that “as long as that crescent remains in the design, I’m not donating a red cent to the memorial.” Well Ed, the crescent does remain in the design, so please rejoin the fight. The desertion of Malkin et. al. makes a difficult gap to fill, but we had better fill it, or the Flight 93 crash-site will soon be home to the world’s largest mosque. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.
One paragraph of the Executive Summary of OIC’s Islamophobia Report merits close examination.
Almost all international covenants, instruments and treaties clearly emphasize that freedom of
expression should be exercised with responsibility1.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which enjoys universal application stipulates in Article 19: “… the exercise of these rights [including freedom of expression] carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may be subject to certain restriction1.”
Article 20: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.2”
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights stipulates: “The exercise of these freedoms since it carries with it duties and responsibilities may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties1.”
- Those remarks are the Islamic pretext for imposing censorship on criticism of Islam. They are asserting and escalating provisions for limitation on free speech. Islam, acting through the OIC, is lobbying for the creation of binding international law which will criminalize any and every negative expression about Islam. The Ad Hoc Committee on Contemporary Standards is meeting to compose a protocol to ICERD for that purpose. The U.N. General Assembly is expected to take up its annual Defamation of Religions resolution next month.
- The prohibition of religious hatred can and must be made to backfire on Islam. Muslims accuse us of hate speech when we expose Islamic doctrines & practices to public view. Their intent is to prevent us from lifting the lid from the septic tank and shining the light of truth on its contents.
If Article 20 is to be enforced, then publication of and preaching from the Qur’an & hadith must be prohibited by law; effectively banning Islam. The Islamic violations of Article 20 include but are not limited to the following verses which incite Muslims to make war upon disbelievers, Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians. . [Emphasis added.]
- 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
- 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
- 9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious – see V.2:2).
- 47:4. So, when you meet (in fight Jihâd in Allâh’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till they embrace Islâm (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allâh’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, He will never let their deeds be lost,
- Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”
- Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526
Narrated Anas ibn Malik:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.
- Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
- Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.
The Jihad imperatives listed above are mandatory, not optional because of another critical verse.
- 2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.
Abu Dawud 14.2526 informs us that the Jihad mandate does not expire before the end of the world. Muslim 41.6985 informs us that Jihad culminates in the extermination of the Jews on the last day. From 9:38-39 we learn that Muslims will be condemned to Hell for refusing to join the Jihad.
- 9:38. O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allâh (i.e. Jihâd) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.
- 9:39 If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is Able to do all things.
Likewise, 61:10-13 proclaim salvation through joining the Jihad.
- 61:10. O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment.
- 61.11. That you believe in Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know!
- 61:12. (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of ‘Adn Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.
Is there any greater incitement than the threat of Hell and promise of Paradise? It is obvious on the face of the facts that Islam must be proscribed by law for violation of Article 20 of ICCPR. The meaning of the cited ayat is clear, beyond dispute. You can confirm that fact by looking them up at http://www.qutafsir.com/ . Because of those ayat and Moe’s excellent example, personally engaging in 19 battles between 623 and 632, Islamic law requires Muslims to mount a minimum of one attack in every year.
“The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims’ interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse.”
Islam is perfected. Allah’s word can not be changed. Will we submit and live as slaves under their sufferance? Will we resist and suffer perpetual attacks of asymmetrical warfare ? Or will we rise up and demand that Islam be outlawed as the human rights violator it is? Let us, for the love of liberty, take the latter course. Endorse the International Qur’an Petition, exhort your family, friends and associates to endorse it, send it to your legislators and be persistent in the pursuit of justice. The ‘right to practice Islam’ is not compatible with our right to live and be free. If Muslims have a ritht to practice Islam, then we have no rights! Take another long hard look at Bukhari 1.8.387. It says that our blood is not sacred to Muslims. That means that they can attack and plunder us with impunity. We only obtain rights and protect ourselves by becoming Muslims.
The practice of Islam involves Jihad. Jihad involves genocide and terrorism. Those are foundational, intrinsic sacraments inseverable from the practice of Islam. Jihad can not be abandoned, to do so would subject Muslims to Allah’s curse of disgrace which would not be lifted until they return to their “original religion”. Jihad, their “original religion”, is defined by Islamic law as “to war against non-Muslims”[Reliance of the Traveller, O9.0].
The conflict imposed by Islam is existential. Rational debate requires putting away childish concepts of political correctness & multiculturalism. Our rights to live; create, own, use & exchange property and believe and worship as we choose can not be subordinated to an arrogantly declared right to plunder us and enslave our orphans. How can anyone have a right to teach his children that they have a divine right & duty to engage in aggression & commit genocide?
Update Nov. 10, 2009: A new edition of the resolution has been tabled in the Third Committee. Two new posts will bring the reader up to date. The first of these was written before I found the draft document. It contains extensive links to earlier resolutions and related documents. The second contains considerable detail about the new resolution and links to items in the footnotes found in the draft. It also has links to petitions you can sign and promote and a Sense of Congress resolution opposing the OIC’s current tactics.
In May of ’09, the OIC issued their 2nd oic observatory report on islamophobia (june 2008 to april 2009). that fifty page pdf file may be our best guide in anticipating the content of the ’09 Defamation of Religions Resolution which is expected to be submitted on or before November 3; voting may begin Nov. 12. As of the time of this writing, no draft resolution has surfaced. In anticipation of the resolution, Open Doors has begun a Free to Believe petition campaign asking UN member states to reject the resolution.
Our first warning flag is found in the first sentence of the report’s forward.
The common values of mankind must be based on a firm commitment to human rights1, as well as on the recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings2.
- Download Islam vs Human Rights to see how well Islamic doctrine complies with international human rights covenants.
- Read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 to see Islam’s respect for human dignity; our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights until we become Muslims.
The second paragraph of the forward is rich and thick with lies.
Islam is a religion that implies “peace” by its very nomenclature3. It advocates respect for all religious beliefs and embraces the truth of the preceding Abrahamic faiths4. In reaffirming the preceding prophethoods, it does not, under any circumstances and as a matter of belief, permit any attack on the prophets or other religious symbols of Christianity or Judaism5. In this context it must be emphasized and understood that Islam is not a contender of Christianity or Judaism6.
- Islam is peace if and only if submission is peace. Submission is peace to the extent that, if you surrender to Islam, it won’t wage war against you.
- The Jews earned Allah’s anger and the Christians went astray. 9:30. And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
- Read The Defamation of Jesus Christ to learn how Islam denies his patrimony, crucifixion, death & resurrection and depicts him as a genocidal warlord.
- Allah’s Jihad imperatives, expressed in 9:29 & 9:123 prove the fact that Islam is in a permanent state of war against Jews & Christians.
The third paragraph of the forward is a gold mine of lies, with a little truth mixed in.
Islamophobia signifies the contemporary proliferation of discrimination against Muslims and distortion of Islam and is partly due to the ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam in the West7. It would be an unfortunate error in judgment in believing that Islam is linked to terror8; that it is intolerant of other religious beliefs9, that its values and practices are not democratic10; that it favors repression of freedom of expression and undermining human rights11.
- Phobia implies irrational fear & loathing. Is it irrational to loathe an institution which has murdered 270,000,000 people in the last 1386 years? I hate Islam, but I do not distort it; I reveal its evil nature by means of its own canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence. I am attempting to correct popular ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam.
- Islam is linked to terror by Allah’s declaration that he would cast terror, order to mutilate in conjunction with his casting of terror, declaration that he successfully cast terror, and Moe’s declaration that he was made victorious by terror.
- Allah said that if anyone sought a religion other than Islam, it would never be accepted. Allah commanded Muslims to fight pagans until only Allah is worshiped. Is that tolerance?
- 33:36. It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error. How democratic is that?
- The issue of Defamation of Religion & Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolutions results from the OIC’s promotion of censorship.If waging war against us does not violate human rights, what does?
In the fourth paragraph, we receive our first hints at the resolution to come.
Islamophobia is a manifestation of racial discrimination12. It constitutes a two stranded form of racism anchored in both the different physical appearance of Muslims as well as the intolerance of their religion and cultural beliefs. It has now spread to the level of mainstream political activity13 and needs to be considered and addressed as one of the most serious threats to the
- Criticism of Islam has been equated to racism since the preliminary document for Durban II. Accusation of racism is a favorite method of stifling debate.
- That is an obvious reference to emerging European parties which object to Islamification.
Following a little consolidation, they’ll give us another hint. Muslims are suffering from the Danish Cartoons, Fitna and blog posts that reveal orthodox Islamic doctrines. Muslims are so delicate and temperamental that they require a legal shield to protect them from perceived insult. They are burning homes & churches and killing Christians in Africa & Asia but it is Muslims who need protection from attack. Yeah, right.
The frequency of demonic portrayal and misrepresentation of Islam and Muslims have resulted in a situation where the identity of Muslims,
their self-esteem, human dignity and human rights has suffered tremendously. In short, Muslims need to be afforded protection against the social and psychological damage inflicted by the negative stereotyping and smear campaign which has wrongfully caused discrimination, bigotry, harassment and mental and physical abuse.
It is not extremely clear, we must read between the lines to harvest the next hint from the redundant maundery.
A section of the western media is a major factor in the formation of the collective misrepresentation about Islam and Muslims14. This has been spreading in the impactful areas of information15, education and the fertile grounds for the dissemination of the open hostility and the entrenchment of hatred against it.
In the present globalized world, peaceful and harmonious coexistence among diverse religions and cultures is not an option but the only means to survival16. Spectacular achievements in sphere of information and communication technology that have transformed our world into a single community afford threats as well as opportunities for peaceful coexistence17. They present mankind with tools to incite hatred and intolerance; discrimination; and distortions of religious and cultural beliefs that can spark violence causing loss of innocent lives and damage to property18. On the other hand, they can be utilized to do the reverse if we have the collective will not to allow their use to preach hatred and intolerance of other religions and cultural beliefs19.
- The media will continue to be a target, as it was in the Durban II Draft, Paragraphs 17, 66 & 119 and paragraphs 3(e) & 8 of the more recent Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution passed by the UNHRC. We can expect them to demand self-censorship again. .
- “Information” is a code word for the internet. They want to censor blogs and web sites. The reference to education means they want to convert our schools into indoctrination centers to convert our children to Islam.
- Translation: “embrace Islam and you will be safe”, a common theme in Moe’s extortion letters.
- “Threats” means they want to shut down our blogs and web sites. “Opportunities” means they want to set up propaganda sites to recruit converts by concealing the truth about Islam while extolling its non-existent virtues.
- “Spark violence” is a reference to the Danish Cartoons, which did not cause violence. The violence was caused by rabble rousing sermons at Juma Prayers in Mosques.
- Clarity at last! The demand for censorship is out in the open.
The conclusions and Recommendations section on page 26 of the pdf reinforces the lies I exposed earlier and the call for Dialogue which they brought out in the Executive Summary, which I did not cover. The Dialogue pitch is boilerplate from past resolutions.
The OIC proposes a frank, sincere and result oriented Dialogue20 geared to curbing Islamophobia through promoting better understanding of different cultures and religions as well as better integration of Muslims in the West21. The OIC has remained firm in its commitment towards bringing about a meaningful Dialogue among civilizations and has been working closely with its international partners including the Alliance of Civilizations towards intercultural understanding and defeating the propagators of hatred and intolerance22.
- The Dialogue got its big start with “A Common Word between Us and You“, sent by the Ulema to Pope Benedict XIV. That missive is so full of al-Taqeyya & kitman that I created a new blog, Go Burn With Muhammad to expose it. Moe’s idea of Dialogue was ‘you surrender or we conquer you’. The modern Dialogue is more subtle, but the bottom line is the same.
- Many Muslims do not assimilate, they form enclaves and eventually demand the privilege of operating them under Shari’ah.
- The OIC is practicing projection. Islam is the propagator of hatred and intolerance. Those who doubt this fact should read the litany of hateful and violent Qur’an verses in the Calcutta Quran Petition.
On page 27, paragraph h gives us another important clue. They are going to push for a protocol to ICERD. The protocol, unlike the resolutions passed by the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, will be binding international law, enforcible by the ICJ. The Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards is currently writing it.
Existing international laws on incitement to religious hatred including the International Convention on All forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief, the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the country in which they live, the Declaration on the rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities and the relevant UN Resolutions must be implemented.
Violation of the above listed covenants is an issue that can and should backfire on Islam. If they were strictly enforced, the Qur’an, hadith, tafsir & Shari’ah would be banned, proscribed by law. We need to make that happen. To the best of my knowledge, the International Qur’an Petition is the only effort along that line.
It is likely that much of the resolution will be boilerplate from previous editions. The ’08 Defamation of Religions Resolution is a likely model. My analysis of the Nov. 8 ‘ 08 draft will either put you to sleep or rouse you to sign the petition at Open Doors.
A new Facebook group with 374,715 members, We want Facebook to close this group “koran toilet paper roll is organizing a boycott of Facebook, scheduled for October 24. The purpose of the boycott is to pressure Facebook to delete the Anti Islam group: Koran Toilet Paper Roll, which has 3,324 3,325 members. The opposition group, We who will stay online on Facebook all 24 hours of October 24th! has 102 members.
Koran toilet paper roll’s page features a fatwa permitting using the Bible for anal hygiene. Unfortunately, the source of the fatwa is in Arabic, and Google Translate made a mess of it so I am unable to verify the fatwa. I have seen a fatwa which prohibits the use of bones, dung, Qur’ans and any paper that might have been imprinted with Qur’anic text. But then, we know what terrorists did when they occupied the Church of the Nativity.
In any case, Muslims are hypersensitive to all criticism as well as ridicule & mockery; they diligently seek to censor it. As evidenced by the number of adherents in the boycott group, Muslims are a dedicated and organized lot. Lovers of liberty must become dedicated and organized or we will surely be defeated.
October 24, 2009 is a good day for joining We who will stay online on Facebook all 24 hours of October 24th! and any of the Anti-Islam Facebook groups.
Edit: The group was pulled down, recreated and pulled down again. It remains down. But groups demanding its demise are still active.
Why is this old post still attracting readers so long after the event?? Please leave a comment explaining your interest. Thank you.
The Israel Project has a new petition demanding enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1696. The petition is short, simple, well written and meritorious. Lets rise up in unison and push this one over the top. We must send an unmistakable message to Ban Ki-moon. I urge you to sign the petition and forward it to everyone you can hope to influence.
It becomes increasingly obvious that if effective sanctions are not imposed. Israel will be compelled to take effective action. Why not make a last ditch effort to make a military attack unnecessary?
To: The Honorable Secretary-General of the United Nations
We, the undersigned, feel that a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat to Israel, the United States and the entire Western world. Iran must be stopped now before it develops a nuclear bomb.
Iran restarted its nuclear fuel research program and is now enriching uranium needed to create a nuclear bomb. Iran rebuffed the UN’s offer of incentives to suspend enrichment and has rejected UN Security Council Resolution 1696, which requires the immediate suspension of all enrichment-related activities and strict monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Iran’s president Ahmadinejad is a religious extremist who has declared that Israel should be wiped off the map in a religious war with the infidel West, which will be led by Iran and the rest of the Muslim world.
As the world’s leading state sponsor of international terrorism, Iran is likely to sell or give nuclear weapons to terror groups like Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. These groups have terrorist cells throughout Europe and the US.
We demand that the UN enforce its own Resolution 1696. Iran must immediately and unconditionally:
- Stop enriching uranium
- Open all of its facilities to monitoring by the IAEA
- Stop funding terrorist groups including Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas
- Recognize the right of Israel to exist peacefully within its internationally-recognized borders. It is time for the UN to take a stand against Iran and its nuclear ambitions
objection against the absurd decision to award B. Obama Nobel Peace PrizeTarget:Nobel Peace Prize CommitteeSponsored by:
Lets express our objection against the absurd decision to award B. Obama Nobel Peace Prize. His activity had not yet abounded the unusual achievements. And although it can not be denied his potential, a decision the Nobel Committee is definitely premature, and in addition the political. Unfortunately, such a choice Stockholm committee is directed at existing laureates this prestigious Prize, who have spent years devoted themselves to working hard and consistently for their ideals.
Hat tip: jillosophy.blogspot.com
Imperfect as it is, the petition is far superior to anything I could produce in any language other than English, and it just scratches the surface of my sentiments. I endorsed it without hesitation and hope that you will, too. There are more than 1600 signatures and I hope it will garner one thousand times that number.
Awarding the peace prize to a terrorist appeasing traitor denigrates the prize as much as honoring Arafat & Carter did.
This post received the honor of a referral from the Washington Post, presumably from the Sphere Related Content link associated with “Nobel jury speaks out in defense of Obama prize“. The jury seems to believe that anal osculation of Islam is a good thing; in reality, it invites attack by displaying a lack of awareness and resolve to defend ourselves. Dajjal 10/13/’09