Freedom Ain’t Free welcomes the Department of Homeland Security, who began reading snooper.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/al-nafisi-incites-terrorism/ shortly after noon Nov. 6, ‘09  and hung around through 3am  Nov. 8.

The Washington D.C. office loaded that single post 33 times while the Laredo TX.  office made 45 page loads, reading a few other posts in addition  to the post about Sheikh Nafisi.

In April, when the post was fresh, it was viewed 62 times. It had 9 hits in August, 7 in September and  9 in October, with 124 hits in November. Why did a post which averaged less than one hit per day  in recent months suddenly spike to 77, 41,2  three days in November?  What accounts for the multiple page loads?  Did multiple staffers load the page in succession?

A search for the Sheikh’s name did not turn up any relevant news using Google and Bing. Searches for recent crop duster  and anthrax related stories also came up empty.  There were two search engine referrals involving al-Nafisi. There was one page load for that post that was not directly attributable to the DHS.  I assume that DHS had some reason for searching for that name. What I do not understand is why they did not click through to MEMRI to view the source of the material I posted.

Is there some indication of a renewed potential for an anthrax attack?  That is just what we need with a flu epidemic under way;  if every cough and sneeze raised fears of anthrax inhalation, the emergency rooms would be swamped with panicked patients.

Our government needs to come clean with us, drop the pretenses and admit the fact that Islam is our enemy, having declared and prosecuted war against us.  The Bush / Obama blather about a “great religion of peace, hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists” is counterproductive, as is their policy of leaving our southern border wide open to a flood of illegal immigrants, including a substantial number of “other than Mexicans”. .

If I recall correctly, several GIs were killed in Iraq by a grenade tossed by a Muslim colleague.  The Fort Hood Massacre was perpetrated by a Muslim whose conduct and expressions had raised red flags.  Two cases do not form a clear pattern, but they do present a warning sign.  Our servicemen must not be placed at risk by mixing enemy forces into their ranks.

The time has come to purge our armed forces of Muslims. The time has come to weed them out of clerical, administrative and decision making positions in the federal bureaucracy.  A Muslim is one who submits to and obeys Allah.  What did he command them to do?  What did Muhammad exemplify for them to emulate? Expressions such as  ”fight them”, “fight those who” and “cast terror” come to mind immediately. Regular readers of my posts are familiar with them and their sources.  The shooter was praising Allah while murdering his comrades.  Once is enough.

Did the army enlist American Nazis in WW2?  Why not?  Weren’t they harmless moderates, patriotic Americans? Would ANP members have experience conflict if sent to Europe to fight the Germans?  Who would they have aimed at?  Maj. Hasan was conflicted about fighting his Muslim brethren. Who did he aim at?

The time has come to drop the pretense & fantasy and observe the facts in the cold clear light of reason. If the Congress & President we elected won’t do what is right, then we need to replace them in the next election cycle.

Examine these definitions of defamation & stereotyping:

Definitions of defamation on the Web:

• a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone’s words or actions
• aspersion: an abusive attack on a person’s character or good name
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a …
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Definitions of stereotyping on the Web:

• A stereotype is a phrase relating to all the members of class or set. The term is often used with a negative connotation when referring to an …
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotyping
• stereotype – pigeonhole: treat or classify according to a mental stereotype; “I was stereotyped as a lazy Southern European”

Defamation involves factual falsity. Stereotyping involves broad generalization.  What is the big deal; what is the significance of these concepts?   Both are included in the latest edition of the UN’s Defamation of Religions [Islam] resolution tabled in the Third Committee by Syria for the OIC on October 29, 2010.

The Department of State of the United States of America opposes the defamation clause and supports the negative stereotyping clause.
Statement by the Delegation of the United States of America
Delivered by Sarah Cleveland
Geneva, 30 September 2009

While we do not support the concept of “defamation of religions” for reasons well known to this Council, my government is strongly committed to religious freedom and has condemned the use of negative and derogatory stereotypes and discrimination and/or discriminatory policies. We recognize that such stereotyping and discrimination affects individuals of all faiths and races, and express our strong condemnation of the types of such intolerance provided in the report.

What’s the big deal? When accused of defamation, we have a defense: truth. When accused of stereotyping, what defense do we have?  Consider the example of Danish Cartoons. Moe was depicted with a bomb in his bonnet, implying that he was a terrorist and, by inferrence, that all Muslims are terrorists  Moe died long before the invention of gun powder, so he never possessed a bomb.  Does that preclude him from being a terrorist?

Speaking for Allah, Moe said:  ”We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers)[3:151] He was speaking for Allah when he said: (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.” [8:12]

So Moe talked tough. Did he carry out those threats? Yes, he did; the evidence is found in the Qur’an.

• 33:26 And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
  • And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

Is there any confirmation?  Of course there is, in the hadith.

• Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
  Narrated Abu Huraira:

   

  Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Terror made Moe victorious. What more proof do you need? Moe was a terrorist. What of the Ummah? Are they all terrorists?  They are if they emulate Moe.

• 33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much.

To understand these issues, one needs to read the Qur’an & hadith and observe the context as a whole. Our misleaders want us to accept a false description of Islam as a “religion of peace”.  They want us to believe that Islamic aggression is a deviation from the standard, performed by a tiny minority who have hijacked a great religion.

Only those who will expend the time and effort needed to read Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence will fully comprehend this issue. Aggression is foundational to Islam. Read Surah Al-Anfal & At-Taubah.  Turn back and read 9:111 again.

• 9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

What is the relationship between Allah and the Muslims? What do the Muslims do for Allah?  They are his slaves who fight in his cause, kill and are killed. Return to Al-Anfal and read from ayeh 2 to 42.    What is the meaning of “spend out of that We have provided them”?  What is the meaning of “:to go out from your home with the truth,”?

• 9:88. But the Messenger (Muhammad ) and those who believed with him (in Islâmic Monotheism) strove hard and fought with their wealth and their lives (in Allâh’s Cause). Such are they for whom are the good things, and it is they who will be successful.
• 9:89. For them Allâh has got ready Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success.
• 9:90. And those who made excuses from the bedouins came (to you, O Prophet ) asking your permission to exempt them (from the battle), and those who had lied to Allâh and His Messenger sat at home (without asking the permission for it); a painful torment will seize those of them who disbelieve.
• 9:91. There is no blame on those who are weak or ill or who find no resources to spend [in holy fighting (Jihâd)], if they are sincere and true (in duty) to Allâh and His Messenger. No ground (of complaint) can there be against the Muhsinûn (good-doers – see the footnote of V.9:120). And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Spending, in the context of 8:3, is a reference to Jihad.

• 9:83. If Allâh brings you back to a party of them (the hypocrites), and they ask your permission to go out (to fight), say: “Never shall you go out with me, nor fight an enemy with me; you agreed to sit inactive on the first occasion, then you sit (now) with those who lag behind.”

Go out, in the context of 8:5, is a reference to Jihad.

• 8:2. The believers are only those who, when Allâh is mentioned, feel a fear in their hearts and when His Verses (this Qur’ân) are recited unto them, they (i.e. the Verses) increase their Faith; and they put their trust in their Lord (Alone);
• 8:3. Who perform As-Salât (Iqâmat­as­Salât) and spend out of that We have provided  them.
• 8:4. It is they who are the believers in truth. For them are grades of dignity with their Lord, and Forgiveness and a generous provision (Paradise).
• 8:5. As your Lord caused you (O Muhammad ) to go out from your home with the truth, and verily, a party among the believers disliked it;

It is clear from the context, that those who do not participate in Jihad when called are not believers. Believers are only those who participate in Jihad.  If they do not emulate Moe, they are not believers.  Those who neither participate directly in genocidal Jihad nor finance it, support the families of men at the battlefront, pray for victory nor engage in propaganda to support the Jihad are hypocrites, not believers. Hypocrites are to be fought and killed along with Kufar. [4:89]

What does this boil down to in the context of the  ’10 version of the Defamation of Religions resolution?

17. Welcomes the recent steps taken by Member States to protect freedom of religion through the enactment or strengthening of domestic frameworks and legislations to prevent the defamation of religions and the negative stereotyping of religious groups;

The context is one of a demand for national and international legislation to criminalize all criticism of Islam.   When we counter  ”religion of peace” with  exposure of Allah’s imperatives and Moe’s razia & ghazwat, we are accused of “defamation of Islam” and “negative stereotyping”, the very acts the resolution seeks to outlaw.

11. Reaffirms that general recommendation XV (42) of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,15 in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

12. Strongly condemns all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic,
religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, including on the basis of religion or belief, and urges all States to apply and, where applicable, reinforce existing laws when such xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in order to eradicate impunity for those who commit xenophobic and racist acts;

13. Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and encourages States, in their  Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,7 to include aspects relating to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in their national plans of action and, in this context, to take forms of multiple discrimination against minorities fully into account;

15. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general;

They are demanding that member states enact and enforce legislation prohibiting all criticism of Islam. In his introduction to the OIC Observatory on Islamophobia, March 31 ‘08,  Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference, had this to say about Islamophobia.

The Muslim Ummah has noticed with utmost concern the continued attacks by a section of marginal groups and individuals in the West on the most sacred symbols of Islam including the Holy Quran and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in an offensive and denigrating manner, the most recent being the reprints of the blasphemous cartoons by 17 Danish newspapers on February 13, 2008 and the release of the film Fitna by a Dutch Parliamentarian on March 27, 2008. This apart, Muslims continue to be stereotyped, discriminated and profiled in many Western countries that have contributed to the issue. [Emphasis added.]

The Danish Cartoons & Fitna are the targets of their scorn because the cartoons accurately describe Moe as a terrorist and Fitna exposes the true source of Islamic violence.

Big deal? Blessed right it is!!! Under the proposed legislation, the next Hitler need only disguise his war machine as a religion, and nobody can question or criticize  it without being persecuted.  That is precisely what Moe did 1399 years ago. The OIC, their factotums in the UN and the Obama administration seek to shield Islam from all questioning and criticism.

We can counter attack.

• International Qur’an Petition
• Free to Believe
• ACLJ
• H.Res.763

Sign the petitions and urge your family, friends and associates to sign and promote them. Visit http://www.congress.org/ , enter your Zip Code and send your Congressman an email demanding that H.Res.763 be brought to the floor and passed before the final vote on the Defamation of Religions resolution.

The resolution will not become binding, enforcible international law, but it adds an aura of moral authority to local blasphemy laws which are used to persecute indigenous Christians. The proposed protocol to ICERD, being written by the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards,  will become binding international law, enforcible in court. Eternal vigilancemeta is the price of liberty. Sign the petitions and exhort Congress to pass H.Res.763. Remain alert and keep the pressure on.

United Nations A/C.3/64/L.27 Combating defamation of religions tabled in the third committee. by Belarus, Syrian Arab Republic* and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of):
{A/C.3/64/L.28 Combating defamation of religions is embargoed, I can not determine if it is a competing draft or whether it is related in any way. }

*for the OIC.
The draft resolution is in the form of a 7 page, 56kb pdf consisting of an enumerated list of 25 items, the substantial parts begin on page 2.

Since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in remarks introducing the current Religious Freedom Report, rejected the concept of defamation of religions and accepted the concept of negative stereotyping:

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.

I will begin with references to those concepts.

Defamation occurs twelve times in the draft resolution, beginning with the title.

Stressing that the defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

That section implies a cause : effect relationship between defamation of religions, restriction of freedom & hatred and violence. Did Christians who viewed the Danish Cartoons subsequently assault Muslims and destroy their property as a result?

Stressing also the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general,

How do they plan to combat the defamation of Judaism and Christianity in the Qur’an wherein Allah expresses anger toward us, curses us and declares perpetual war against us? Is that really part of their program of action?

Noting with concern that the defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights, and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the resulting discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions,

“Inaction of some states” is a vague term; what does it mean? Is it a reference to Denmark allowing publication of the cartoons and Holland allowing the publication of Fitna? What discrimination against Muslims resulted from those publications?

…sessions, in which the Special Rapporteur highlighted the serious nature of the defamation of all religions and the need to complement legal strategies…

“Legal strategies” is a reference to national and international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of the defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

“Overall campaign of the defamation of religions” ; is one single source defaming more than one religion and inciting religious hatred? Where is religious hatred incited other than in Mosques Madrassas and the state run media of Islamic nations where Jihad against Jews & Christians is preached? Was it Muslims or Mormons who perpetrated that attack and those in London & Madrid? Because Muslims perpetrated those attacks and others in the name of Allah, we are unable to trust Muslims. Failure to profile would be suicidal.

6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as their economic and social exclusion;

Does anyone else recognize the non sequitur in that item?

8. Reiterates the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which was adopted without a vote by the General Assembly on 8 September 200614 and reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and which clearly confirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group, stressing the need to reinforce the international community’s commitment to promote a culture of peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures and prevent the defamation of religions; [Emphasis added.]

Take a good long look at the emphasized clause in item 8. Terrorism is associated with Islam because it is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam, sanctified & exemplified in the Qur’an and confirmed in Moe’s sunnah.

• 3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).
• 8:12 (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.”
• 33:26 And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
  • And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.
• Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
  Narrated Abu Huraira:Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

But we must not say or write that: to do so constitutes “defamation”, “negative stereotyping”, and ” incitement to religious hatred & violence”, according to the OIC and their factotums at the UN. Debate must be closed and silence imposed by law, even of truthful expressions which expose Islam’s intrinsic evils.

Does anyone recognize the subsequent non sequitur? Promoting tolerance for the intolerable does not promote peace or justice. Islam is infamous because of its own canonical texts and its continuing history of rapine. Peace & justice would be promoted by recognizing and eliminating aggressive evil.

15. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general;

Item 15 asserts that accurate description of the doctrines and practices of Islam incites hatred, intimidation & coercion. It demands the passage & enforcement of national laws to prevent & punish truthful criticism of Islam, including Fitna and this blog post.

17. Welcomes the recent steps taken by Member States to protect freedom of religion through the enactment or strengthening of domestic frameworks and legislations to prevent the defamation of religions and the negative stereotyping of religious groups;

19. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through education and awareness-raising, and urges all States to ensure equal access to education for all, in law and in practice, including access to free primary education for all children, both girls and boys, and access for adults to lifelong learning and education based on respect for human rights, diversity and tolerance, without discrimination of any kind, and to refrain from any legal or other measures leading to racial segregation in access to schooling;

To make item 19 honest, indoctrination should be substituted for “education”.

25. Requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world, to the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session.

Negative stereotyping occurs three times.

2. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still evident in the world;

They are concerned about Fitna & similar videos, the Danish Cartoons and blog posts which expose Islamic doctrines which sanctify and mandate genocidal warfare & terrorism.

17. Welcomes the recent steps taken by Member States to protect freedom of religion through the enactment or strengthening of domestic frameworks and legislations to prevent the defamation of religions and the negative stereotyping of religious groups;

Truthful exposure of Islamic doctrines & practices does not diminish freedom of religion. Where Allah’s writ runs, as in Egypt, Pakistan & Saudi Arabia, Islam diminishes freedom of religion.

23. Welcomes the initiative by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the expert seminar on freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, on 2 and 3 October 2008, and requests the High Commissioner to continue to build on this initiative, with a view to concretely contributing to the prevention and elimination of all such forms of incitement and the consequences of negative stereotyping of religions or beliefs, and their adherents, on the human rights of those individuals and their communities;

According to the OIC and their UN factotums, Fitna and the Danish Cartoons are advocacy of religious hatred constituting incitement of violence. The Cartoons depicted Moe as a terrorist, which, by his own admission, he was. Fitna exposed the relationship between Allah’s Jihad imperatives, the hatred preached by Muslim clerics and the violence done by their congregants. In reality, that is not defamation neither is it negative stereotyping nor is it incitement.

The draft resolution is a demand for national and international enforcement of Islam’s blasphemy law, which punishes any negative statement about Allah, his messenger or his book with death.

Reliance of the Traveller’s Book O [Justice]. O8.7 lists 20 things that entail apostasy. Here are a few relevant items in that list.

-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-15- to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala’ al-din’ Abidin adds the following:

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24). )

Another provision prescribes the penalty.

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

One of the rules applied to dhimmis is equally instructive. What is impermissible to say about Allah or Moe? According to previously quoted statements, it is impermissible to link Islamic violence with Islamic scripture & tradition.

O11.10

The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

The passage of these Defamation of Religion resolutions gives an unwarranted aura of legitimacy to the blasphemy laws enforced in Pakistan and other Islamic countries. Those laws are frequently used to persecute innocent victims, including indigenous Christians, converts to Christianity and missionaries.

Canadian, British, Australian and European critics of Islam have been persecuted, jailed and fined for truthful expressions about Islam. The policy of the Obama administration places our First Amendment right of free expression at risk. The Secretary of State condemns the defamation clauses but supports those alleging negative stereotyping. Both clauses have the same effect: criminalizing accurate description of Islamic doctrines and practices.

We must therefore resist and counter attack. Please sign, support and publicize the following on line petitions.

• International Qur’an Petition
• Free to Believe
• ACLJ

For a long list of links to previous resolutions, related documents and blog posts, refer to Defamation of Religions: Background Info.

External References in the resolution: superscripts refer to footnotes in the draft resolution.

• ¹ICERD
• ²ICCPR
  • For detailed documentation of how Islamic doctrines violate these international covenants, refer to Islam vs Human Rights 64kb chm file compiled from 7 blog posts.
• ³Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
• ⁴Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live
• ⁵Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities,
• Recalling the relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council in this regard,
  • None specified; assuming the reference is to previous defamation resolutions.
    • E/CN.4/1999/167
    • E/CN.4/2005/135
    • E/CN.4/2004/127
    • E/CN.4/2002/200
    • E/CN.4/2001/167
    • E/CN.4/2000/167
    • A/HRC/4/123
    • A/C.3/60/L.29
    • A/RES/60/150
    • A/RES/61/164
    • A/RES/63/171
    • A/C.3/60/SR.45
    • A/HRC/4/123
    • A/HRC/12/L.l4/Rev
• ⁶United Nations Millenium Declaration
• ⁷Durban Declaration A/CONF.189/12
  • Durban Declaration – A/CONF.189/12 Chapter I – UN Documents
• ⁸Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference, held in Geneva in April 2009 A/CONF.211/8
• ⁹Taking note of the reports of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
  • A/HRC/4/19
  • A/HRC/6/6
  • A/HRC/9/12
  • A/HRC/12/38
• ¹⁰Global Agenda for Dialogue among Civilizations, A/RES/56/6
• ¹¹Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Tehran on 3 and 4 September 2007 A/62/464, annex.
  • ¹²A/62/18
  • CERD/C/63/CO/11, para. 20 (10 December2003)
  • CERD/C/63/CO/6, para. 14 (10 December 2003)
  • CERD/C/NGA/CO/18, para. 20 (1 November 2005)
  • CERD/C/TZA/CO/16, para. 20 (1 November 2005)
  • CERD/C/IRL/CO/2,para. 18 (14 April 2005)
  • CERD/C/RUS/CO/19, paras. 16 and 17 (20 August 2008)
• resolution 63/171 of 18 December 2008
• ¹³report of the Secretary-General A/64/209
• ¹⁴United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, A/RES/60/288 General Assembly
• ¹⁵general recommendation XV (42) of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (A/48/18), chap. VIII, sect. B.
• ¹⁶World Programme for Human Rights Education proclaimed by the General Assembly on 10 December 2004 resolutions 59/113 A and B.

In remarks about the pending Defamation of Religions resolution, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said this.

“It is important to note that passage of these resolutions by a majority vote beyond the membership of the OIC lends international legitimacy to the OIC position on this issue,”

That confirms the obvious: passing defamation resolutions legitimizes Islam’s malicious malarkey.  Lets drill down to the crucial details.

In his introduction to the OIC Observatory on Islamophobia, March 31 ‘08,  Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference, had this to say about Islamophobia.

The Muslim Ummah has noticed with utmost concern the continued attacks by a section of marginal groups and individuals in the West on the most sacred symbols of Islam including the Holy Quran and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in an offensive and denigrating manner, the most recent being the reprints of the blasphemous cartoons by 17 Danish newspapers on February 13, 2008 and the release of the film Fitna by a Dutch Parliamentarian on March 27, 2008. This apart, Muslims continue to be stereotyped, discriminated and profiled in many Western countries that have contributed to the issue. [Emphasis added.]

Notice that the argument begins with an ad hominem argument: “marginal groups and individuals”.  Ihsanoglu slapped a “marginal” label on the cartoonists and Geert Wilders.  Note that the cartoons are labeled “blasphemous”. Is that label deserved?  In the cartoons, Moe is depicted as a terrorist; is that blasphemy if the depiction is true?  Consider what codified Islamic oral tradition tells us about the matter.

• Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey. [Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331]
• I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy) [Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220] [Emphasis added.]

The cartoons exaggerate, because Moe never possessed a bomb, but they are they blasphemy if their message is true?

Fitna is described as an attack on the Holy Quran because it displayed verses which incite violence, demonstrated their use in kutbah and displayed images of the results. Refer to  Fitna: Supporting Documentation for documentation of the Qur’an verses used in Fitna and Wilders’ address to the Dutch Parliament. Is truthful speech blasphemy?

CNN reported on remarks by the OIC and other Muslims and included a quote from Ban Ki-moon.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the film, calling it “offensively anti-Islamic” while urging calm.

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” he said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

Ban Ki-Moon labeled Fitna hate speech and incitement to violence, but the hate speech, incitement & violence depicted in the documentary came from the pens,  tongues & hands of Muslims, not from Geert Wilders, his narrative is objective and accurate.

Payvand’s Iran News reported on remarks by the OIC General Secretary.

“The film was a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims” that aimed to “provoke unrest and intolerance,”

Pakistan, which frequently introduces the OIC resolutions to the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, was also quoted.

Pakistan said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the Netherlands to prosecute Wilders for defamation and deliberately hurting Muslim sentiments, according to IRNA reporter in Islamabad.

Islam wanted Wilders prosecuted for defamation of Islam. In a few months, he will be defending himself before a Dutch tribunal. The OIC’s resolutions seek the persecution of all who criticize Islam.

Examine the remarks of Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers in Uganda, June ‘08.

Fourth: The level of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory, which we have established in order to monitor and document all manifestation of this scourge, and to deal with them in an interactive manner.

Taken together, this plan has proven its merit and we have been able to achieve convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam.

In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

The Ten Year Plan proved its merit with the passage of defamation resolutions by the UN.  Note the mention of “red lines that should not be crossed”; that is a thinly veiled threat of physical violence. Does anyone remember what happened to the film maker Theo van Gogh? In the last sentence of the quote, freedom of expression is mentioned, an obvious reference to the  terms of limitation used in the resolutions.

What accounts for Islam’s extreme sensitivity to criticism?  We can find the answer in Islamic law: Reliance of the Traveller’s Book O [Justice]. O8.7 lists 20 things that entail apostasy. Here are a few relevant  items in that list.

-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-15- to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala’ al-din’ Abidin adds the following:

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24). )

One of the rules applied to dhimmis is equally instructive.  What is impermissible to say about Allah or Moe?  According to previously quoted statements, it is impermissible to link Islamic violence with Islamic scripture & tradition.

O11.10

The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

The penalty for apostasy is death [O8.2]. Remember the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the reward offered for killing him?  In a recent protest against Geert Wilders visiting England, Muslims displayed signs saying “Freedom Go To Hell” and “Islam Will Dominate.”.

If we are to have an honest and open debate about domestic, foreign and military policies affecting our national security, we must be able to discuss Islam’s fundamental nature and the relationship between the orthodox doctrines expressed in its scripture, exemplified in its traditions and codified in its jurisprudence.  When liars such as George Bush and Barack Obama assert that Islam is peaceful, we must be free to present proof that they are misrepresenting reality.

UN resolutions condemning defamation of Islam have another unacceptable effect: they reinforce and give undeserved legitimacy to blasphemy laws which are used to persecute religious minorities in lands where Allah’s writ runs such as Pakistan where, if the courts don’t execute you for any “blasphemous” word or act, the mob will.

As we wait for revelation of the contents of the ‘10 version, let us examine the history of their campaign to silence their critics.   In 1999, when the original Combating Defamation of Islam resolution was passed, Pakistan made some revealing remarks in the Economic And Social Council.

1. Mr. AKRAM (Pakistan), introducing draft resolution E/CN.4/1999/L.40 on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that were members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that, in the past few years, there had been new manifestations of intolerance and misunderstanding, not to say hatred, of Islam and Muslims in various parts of the world. It was to be feared that those manifestations might become as widespread and endemic as antisemitism had been in the past. There was a tendency in some countries and in the international media to portray Islam as a religion hostile to human rights, threatening to the Western world and associated with terrorism and violence, whereas, with the Quran, Islam had given the world its first human rights charter. No other religion received such constant negative media coverage. That defamation compaign was reflected in growing intolerance towards Muslims. [Emphasis added.]

Examine the emphasized clauses. Reading inter alia, it is obvious that a subliminal link is being drawn between criticism of Islam and Hitler’s holocaust. Akram was setting up a false charge of incipient genocide.  In the second section of emphasized text, there is mention of a media tendency to portray Islam as hostile to human rights, threatening and associated with terrorism and violence.

The clear implication is that those characterizations of Islam are false. Unfortunately, they are not. Islam is hostile to human rights: its doctrine of perpetual war against everyone who does not submit to its demands is a violation of the right to life.  Its declaration that  our blood and property only become sacred to Muslims when we become Muslims denies our human dignity and rights.   These facts are documented in Islam vs Human Rights.

Islam is threatening to the western world. It has a historical track record of invading Spain, Italy, France , Austria, and other western nations.  Islam is associated with violence and terrorism. Two Surahs of the Qur’an are entirely dedicated to warmongering. Four of the six canonical hadith collections have books of Jihad or expedition. Moe preached and practiced terrorism for future generations to emulate.

The Defamation of Islam resolution contained these expressions.

1.             Expresses deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions;

 

2.             Also expresses deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and with terrorism;

 

3.             Expresses its concern at any role in which the print, audio­visual or electronic media or any other means is used to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam and any other religion;

 

4.             Urges all States, within their national legal framework, in conformity with international human rights instruments to take all appropriate measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by religious intolerance, including attacks on religious places, and to encourage understanding, tolerance and respect in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief;

The resolution urged states to enact and enforce extremely broad legislation which would violate our First Amendment.

In ‘05, the resolution complained of  involvement of political parties and use of the internet to communicate facts about Islam.  In the spring of ‘09, the resolution included this boilerplate.

14. Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and encourages States, in their follow-up to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,7 to include aspects relating to national or  ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in their national plans of action and, in this context, to take forms of multiple discrimination against minorities fully into account;

15. Invites all States to put into practice the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief;3

16. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination,
intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs and the understanding of their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

If we document the fact that Islam inculcates hatred and incites violence, we are accused of “incitement to religious hatred”.  Turn back to review Ban Ki-moon’s incendiary remarks about Fitna.  There is no excuse for that sort of bigotry. There is no excuse for demands to enshrine it in national & international law.

The following list is included to assist those who desire to delve deeper into the history and philosophy of the defamation resolutions.

UN documents listed in the footnotes of  Defamation of Religions” The End of Pluralism?, published by the Beckett Fund

• Econ. & Soc. Council [ECOSOC], Comm’n on Human Rights, Pakistan, Draft Res., Racism,
  Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and all Forms of Discrimination, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1999/L.40 (Apr. 20,
  1999). This is a Microsoft Word document. 15kb when saved as html.
• ECOSOC, Comm’n on Human Rights [CHR], Summary Record of the 61st Meeting, ¶¶ 3, 6, U.N.
  Doc. E/CN.4/1999/SR.61 (Apr. 29, 1999) (German and Japanese representatives expressing concern about the
  draft resolution’s narrow focus on Islam).
• CHR Res. 1999/82, at 280, U.N. ESCOR, 55th Sess., Supp. No. 3, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1999/167 (Apr.
  30, 1999). {As adopted by acclamation, pg 281}
• CHR Res. 2005/3, at 21, U.N. ESCOR, 61st Sess., Supp. No. 3, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2005/135 (Apr. 12,
  2005)
• CHR Res. 2004/6, at 28, U.N. ESCOR, 60th Sess., Supp. No. 3, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2004/127 (Apr. 13,
  2004);
• CHR Res. 2002/9, at 56, U.N. ESCOR, 58th Sess., Supp. No. 3, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2002/200 (Apr. 15,
  2002);
• CHR Res. 2001/4, at 47, U.N. ESCOR, 57th Sess., Supp. No. 3, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2001/167 (Apr. 18,
  2001);
• CHR Res. 2000/84, at 336, U.N. ESCOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 3, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2000/167 (Apr.
  26, 2000);
• Human Rights Council [HRC] Res. 4/9, at 19, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/4/123 (Mar. 30 2007); Ali S.
  Asani, “So That You May Know One Another”: A Muslim American Reflects on Pluralism and Islam, ANNALS
  AM. ACAD. POL. & SOC. SCI., July 2003, at 40, 40, 49–51.
• G.A., 60th Sess., 3d Comm., Yemen: Draft Resolution: Combating Defamation of Religions, U.N. Doc.
  A/C.3/60/L.29 (Oct. 31, 2005).
• G.A. Res. 60/150, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/150 (Dec. 16, 2005). Resolution 60/150 was adopted by 101
  to 53 votes with 20 abstentions. U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., 64th plen. mtg. at 11, U.N. Doc. A/60/PV.64 (Dec.
  16, 2005).
• G.A. Res. 61/164, U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/164 (Dec. 19, 2006); G.A. Res. 62/154, U.N. Doc.
  A/RES/62/154 (Dec. 18, 2007); G.A. Res. 63/171, U.N. Doc. A/RES/63/171 (Dec. 18, 2008).
• U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., 3d Comm., 45th mtg., ¶ 39, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/60/SR.45 (Nov. 21,
  2005)
• HRC Res. 7/19, at 54, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/4/123 (Mar. 27, 2008); HRC Res. 4/9, supra note 7; G.A.
  Res. 63/171, supra note 18; G.A. Res. 62/154, supra note 18; G.A. Res. 61/164, supra note 18.
• The 2008 General Assembly resolution passed with 86 in
  favor, 53 against, and 42 abstentions. U.N. GAOR, 63rd Sess., 70th plen. mtg. at 17–18, U.N. Doc.
  A/63/PV.70 (Dec. 18, 2008).
• In 2007, the OIC hardly held any informal discussions on the defamation of religions resolution in the
  General Assembly. In 2008, the OIC, led by Uganda, held a number of informal discussions in an effort to
  address concerns from many of the Western delegations. New York Update, General Assembly, 63rd Session,
  Oct. 21–Dec. 18, 2008, N.Y. MONITOR (Int’l Serv. for Human Rights, New York, N.Y.), 2008, at 16, available
  at http://www.ishr.ch/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&Itemid=&gid=252.
• HRC Res. 10/22, at 78, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/10/L.11 (Mar. 26, 2009).
• U.N. Durban Review Conference, Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference, available at
  http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/Durban_Review_outcome_document_En.pdf (last visited July 10,
  2009).
• Githu Muigai, Asma Jahangir & Frank La Rue, Freedom of Expression and Incitement to Racial or
  Religious Hatred, Statement at OHCHR Side Event During the Durban Review Conference (Apr. 22, 2009),
  available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/opinion/docs/SRJointstatement22April09New.pdf.
• Beckett Fund Submission  to OSCE ‘08
• Racism and Religious Discrimination: Is the concept of “Defamation of Religions” productive?
  Intervention at the tenth regular session of the Human Rights Council
  (2 March 2009 – 27 March 2009)
• See the revised version of A/CONF.211/PC/WG.2/CRP.2 at page 7 for draft outcome document as of 23 January 2009. Available at http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/intersession_open_ended19109.pdf
• See also Durban Review Conference Outcome Document [hereafter DRC Outcome Document] (24 April 2009). Available at http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/Durban_Review_outcome_document_En.pdf
• A/HRC/12/L.l4/Rev. “Freedom of Opinion and Expression
• PROPHETS, CARTOONS, AND LEGAL NORMS: RETHINKING THE UNITED NATIONS DEFAMATION OF RELIGION
  PROVISIONS JOSHUA FOSTER [Discovered in the process of searching for links to the documents listed above.]

Other relevant  documents of interest:

• General Comment to guide States Parties in the implementation of the right to freedom of expression;
• Chairman Leo Testimony – Implications of the Promotion of “Defamation of Religions”
• Becket Fund Resources and Documents:
  • What is “Defamation of Religions?”
  • Legal Brief
  • United Nations Human Rights Council testimony (2006)
  • United Nations Human Rights Council testimony (2009)
  • Emory Law Review article
• Related blog posts by this author.  These tend to be flamers with great detail and much redundancy.
  • Ad Hoc Committee Leaves Work Unfinished Our freedom of expression is almost safe until their next session. 10/30/09
  • Religious Freedom Report: Suicidal Orwellianism Pay close attention to Hillary’s remarks; compare them with the text of the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution. 10/27/09
  • Urge Your Rep. to Support H.Res.763! The sense of the House resolution against the OIC’s censorship campaign languishes in cmte., urge your Rep to get it to the floor for an immediate vote before the General Assembly approves the Defamation of Religions resolution! 10/23/09
  • Censorship of Islamophobia: Ignite the Backfire Sign and promote the International Qur’an Petition!!! 10/19/09
  • Combating Defamation of Religions: Anticipation The annual resolution is expected to be tabled 11/3 and voted on 11/12. See Reject the Defamation of Religions Resolution! for links to petitions against the resolution, please sign and promote them! 10/19/09
  • UNHRC US Delegation Reveals Treachery The  U.S. Delegation to the UNHRC  uttered and published a statement on a human rights report. That statement exposes the  Obama administration’s treason to scrutiny; I can not resist.10/13/09
  • Reject the Defamation of Religions Resolution! Open Doors USA, an Evangelical Christian  organization, has posted a petition urging United Nations member states to reject the annual Defamation of Islam resolution. I have endorsed their petition, whose text is reproduced below, and urge you to endorse, support and publicize it.  For more information about previous Defamation Resolutions, see: UN Bans Criticism of Islam.10/08/09
  • Unfairness Doctrine Goes Global Bringing a critical detail right up front: President Obama extended his Unfairness Doctrine to a global scope. 10/05/09
  • Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper 08/04/09  The cmte. President’s outline of the program of censorship. This document is crucial to comprehending the related posts which follow in this list.
  • AdHoc Committee: African Submission 08/03/09  Detailed analysis of the Africa group’s proposal to censor critics of Islam.
  • AdHoc Cmte USA Submission 08/03/09 This nation is governed by irrational idiots & traitors. Read it and weep.
  • AdHoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission 08/03/09  Detailed analysis of the OIC’s proposal to censor critics of Islam.
  • Ad Hoc Committee: Iranian Submission 08/03/09 Detailed analysis of Iran’s proposal to censor critics of Islam.
  • Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards 08/01/09  They aim to add a protocol to ICERD to criminalize these blog posts.
  • Durban II Draft 4/15/09 04/17/09 The draft went through multiple edits. It contains information vital to comprehending what OIC and theheir UN dhimmis are up to.
  • How Censorship Could Become Binding 03/14/09  Plans to amend ICERD to criminalize these blog posts and more.
  • Combating Defamation of Religion 03/13/09  See exactly what the UN is up to, in detail.
  • Moral Standing: the Complaint 03/12/09  Delving deeper into the issue raised in the post below. Extremely important information & links.
  • Hints of Compulsory U.N. Censorship 03/12/09 First hints of the proposed protocol to ICERD. Arcane, but important.
  • Defamation of Religions Resolution Revised 12/03/08  Plenty of detail & documentation plus a list of related posts.
  • UN: Eliminating Intolerance or Protecting it? 12/04/08  Exposing more UN hypocrisy.
  • UN Renews Censorship Demand 11/24/08 A final blast at the annual defamation of Islam resolution.
  • Durban II: Execrable Hypocrisy 11/10/08  The Durban II Draft document is divided into five sections . This article examines the hypocrisy involved in demands for censorship. Quotes are taken from sections  one and five, with the headings linked to source documents. Emphasis has been added for clarity. Includes links to the  articles in the  Egregious Arrogance series.
  • Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 7 11/10/08 Seventh in a series.
  • Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 6 11/09/08 Sixth in  a series.
  • Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 5 11/08/08
  • Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 4 11/08/08 Fourth in a series.
  • Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 3 11/07/08 Third in a series.
  • Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 2 11/06/08 Second in a series.
  • Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 1 11/06/08 First in a series on the evolving  resolution . This series exposes extreeme hypocrisy & arrogance.
  • U.N. Resolving to Silence Islamophobes 10/12/08 Deliaring another treacherous UN resolution.
  • U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext & Context 09/08/08  This post contains vital information about the documents which serve as a basis for the treacherous resolutions passed by the General Assembly & Human Rights Council. It also has a link to the prime source of UN resolutions.
  • UN Resolutions Revisited: Defamation of Religion 08/7/11 Edited 03/19/09 Detailed analysis & deliaring of UN Defamation of Islam Resolutions.
  • UNHRC Hyprocisy! 06/04/08 Deliaring a Human Rights Council Resolution.
  • More UNHRC AssWholliness 04-04-08  Flamer inspired by UNHRC Defamation of Islam Resolution.
  • Islamophobia: Exposing Malicious Malarkey New blog to exploit two speeches referenced in the post above. Masood Khan & Hemayet Uddin are deliared as examplars of al-taqeyya. Their lies were influential in writing the resolutions cited above.  9/08

UN Watch published, in their blog, links to two apparently recent proposals for the protocol to be added to ICERD by the Ad Hoc Cmte. for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. [The pdf  files contained scanned images, not text, so OCR was required. The format will not be an exact match and there may be errors I failed to spot. ] [Emphasis added.]

Provisions of these  proposals are in dispute.  It appears that the committee has been bogged down in procedural matters & disputes so that our freedom of expression may be safe for a few months at least, until their next session.

Proposals by Pakistan on behalf of OIC

1. State Parties States shall prohibit any propaganda, practice, or organisation aimed at justifying or encouraging any form of racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination targeting people of particular groups, such as religious groups, refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, stateless individuals, migrants and migrant workers, communities based on descent, such as people of African descent, indigenous people, minorities and people under foreign occupation.

2. State Parties shall immediately undertake to adopt positive measures designed to eliminate all incitement to racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination in and, to this end, shall commit themselves, inter alia:

1. to declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas aimed at racial,  ethnic, national and religious       discrimination or hatred, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any particular group of persons;
2. to declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda  activities, which encourage and incite racial hatred or discrimination, and shall declare participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;
3. not to permit national or local public authorities incite racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discriininationg,
4. not to permit political parties incite racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination. .
5. to strengthen their legislations or adopt necessary legal provisions to prohibit and suppress racist and xenophobic platforms and to discourage the integration of political parties who promote such platforms in govermnent alliances in order to legitimising the implementation of these platforms.

3. States Parties shall, in accordance with the human rights standards, declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form.

4. States Parties shall promulgate, where they do not exist, a specific legislation prohibiting any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

To decode the substance of the highlighted expressions, we must keep one linguistic abuse constantly in mind:

4.  Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;

That boilerplate from the Durban II Preliminary Document conflates criticism of Islam with racism. Consequently, references to racism in subsequent documents must be read more broadly.

What constitutes incitement to religious hatred?  In effect, any negative expression regarding Islam. This fact becomes clear when we examine the documents  behind previous resolutions: Fitna & the Danish Cartoons. The Secretary General made the matter abundantly clear.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

According to the Secretary General, a documentary juxtaposing verses from the Qur’an and the ravings of Imams with riots in the Arab street constitutes hate speech and incitement.  Geert Wilders proved that the Qur’an  inculcates hatred and  preaching it incites violence. That is truth, not hate speech!  The obvious intention and effect is to make all criticism of Islam a criminal offense.

ICCPR

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

If Article 20 of ICCPR was enforced, the Qur’an would have to be outlawed as propaganda for war and advocacy of religious hatred inciting violence.

It is likely that the OIC’s proposal will be included, along with boilerplate from previous resolutions, in the anticipated Defamation of Religions resolution.  The Nigerian proposal differs: it omits provisions 3 & 4.

Compare the OIC’s proposal to Article 4 of the Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document. See also my analysis of  the Pakistan/OIC submission made last spring.

Remarks on the Release of the 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom
2009 Report on International Religious Freedom.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
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.

The practice of Islam involves Jihad, and Jihad involves  terrorism & genocide. How can that be tolerated?

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

Briefing on the Release of the 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom

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.

Introduction

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.
Executive Summary

`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.

Grass Fire wants to deliver as many petitions as possible Oct. 27. So far, they have  573,704 signatures. Please add yours and pass the link to everyone you can hope to influence.

To: President Barack Obama, Members of Congress

As a concerned citizen, I oppose any and all efforts to further expand government control over the U.S. healthcare and insurance system. Specifically, I oppose the so-called “Public Option” proposals — the “Affordable Health Choices Act” and other similar bills — which amount to government-run, socialized health care that will impose massive taxes on the American people.

Like most Americans, I prefer getting my health coverage through private insurance rather than the federal government. That’s because government healthcare always results in higher costs and rationing. I do not want politicians and bureaucrats dictating the health care and insurance decisions of myself and my employer. Especially in these difficult economic times, I flatly reject any new government healthcare plan that imposes new taxes or burdens on individuals or businesses.

We must communicate our passionate objections to the health care destruction plan. If you are represented by Democrats or Rinos who won’t take NO! for an answer,  it is time to communicate your passion by flaming them. At http://congress.org/ you can enter your Zip Code and fill in a simple form to send an email to your Representative and Senators by clicking the Federal Officials link.  To send them the most profane possible flamer, include this link in your email:

http://snooper.wordpress.com/hell-no/

The staffer who clicks on that link will see a brief explanation of objection to Waxman-Markey Cap & Tax and Health Care Destruction, followed by a big, bright & bold execration.  Don’t delay, do it today!

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:
9/22/2009–Introduced.

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

---

RESOLUTION

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.”

1. 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.
2. 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?

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.

1. Download Islam vs Human Rights to see how well Islamic doctrine complies with international human rights covenants.
2. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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!
3. Read The Defamation of Jesus Christ to learn how Islam denies his patrimony, crucifixion, death & resurrection and depicts him as a genocidal warlord.
4. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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?
4. 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?
5. 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
world’s stability.

1. 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.
2. 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.

1. 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. .
2. “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.
3. Translation: “embrace Islam and you will be safe”, a common theme in Moe’s extortion letters.
4. “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.
5. “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.
6. 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.

1. 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.
2. Many Muslims do not assimilate, they form enclaves and eventually demand the privilege of  operating them under Shari’ah.
3. 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.

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

Dear Secretary-General,

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

Signed,

Click here to sign the petition

online petition

objection against the absurd decision to award B. Obama Nobel Peace Prize

Target:

Nobel Peace Prize Committee

Sponsored by:

nobelpeace.eu

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

The  U.S. Delegation to the UNHRC  uttered and published a statement on a human rights report. That statement exposes the  Obama administration’s treason to scrutiny; I can not resist.  I have therefore selected excerpts for dissection. [Emphasis added.]

Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-38_E.pdf

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,UNGA,,,4ab0a9180,0.html

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/493/42/PDF/N0849342.pdf?OpenElement

The Human Rights Council – 12th session
Statement by the Delegation of the United States of America
Delivered by Sarah Cleveland
Geneva, 30 September 2009

While we do not support the concept of “defamation of religions” for reasons well known to this Council, my government is strongly committed to religious freedom and has condemned the use of negative and derogatory stereotypes and discrimination and/or discriminatory policies. We recognize that such stereotyping and discrimination affects individuals of all faiths and races, and express our strong condemnation of the types of such intolerance provided in the report.

It is good to read that the Obama administration does not support the concept of defamation of  Islam, but it would be better  if they would emphatically condemn it. The term “negative and derogatory stereotypes” raises a red flag.  Its implication: ‘all Muslims are evil’ its reality: Islam is evil. It is a veiled reference to Geert Wilders’ video Fitna and the infamous Danish Cartoons. Once that overly broad term is enshrined in law, it will be used to criminalize all criticism of Islam.

As noted in our response to the High Commissioner on the issue of defamation of religion, the United States believes the best way for governments to address the issues underlying intolerance is to develop effective legal regimes to address acts of discrimination and bias-inspired crime; to condemn hateful speech and proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups. We strive to do this while vigorously defending the freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

Crime is crime, regardless of the identity of the victim. Rape or robbery, assault or murder, the effect is the same whether the victims is straight or queer, Atheist or Muslim and ought to carry equal penalty dependent on the offense, not the victim.

Condemning hateful speech raises the issue of definition. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared Fitna and the Danish Cartoons to be hate speech, following the lead of the OIC. From their viewpoint, any truthful criticism of Islam is hateful speech.  Their tactical objective is to criminalize all criticism of Islam so that we will be completely disarmed in the war of ideas.  The Obama administration is siding with the enemy, against the First Amendment right of free expression.

The advocacy of proactively reaching out to all religious communities … especially minority groups points out significant hypocrisy.

• condemned the use of negative and derogatory stereotypes and discrimination
• proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups
  

The inconsistency should be immediately obvious to everyone. So should the second incidence of hypocrisy  in that paragraph.

• condemn hateful speech
• while vigorously defending … freedom of expression

When the cartoonists pointed out the fact that Muhammad was a terrorist,  their  art was condemned as hateful speech. The OIC and its factotums in  the UN  Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism; I refuted that assertion in Freedom of Opinion and Expression by revealing the source of the association. That is truth, not hate speech. President Obama would condemn it.

Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are serious challenges facing the international community and the United States believes they must be examined methodically and deliberately. The United States submits that this process of self-examination and action by the international community begin with greater opportunities to exchange views and address empirical data and practice on matters related to racial, ethnic, and religious diversity, discrimination, and intolerance – notably through discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards – so as to broaden our common understanding of these important issues and provide a solid foundation for a broad-based consensus for further actions and initiatives.

You think that racism refers to irrational hatred of people whose skin color is different. That is not what the word means to the OIC and UN. To them,  it  means criticism of and enmity to Islam.

4.  Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;

Since the publication of the Durban II Preliminary Document,  when you read racism in a UN document, you can translate it as Islamophobia. No word is safe in the Orwellian UN.  Related intolerance is a code phrase for the same concept. Islamophobia implies irrational fear and loathing. What is irrational about fear and loathing of a war cult which has murdered 270*10⁶ people in the last 1386 years?

The Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards has an abstract name which contains no hint of its purpose. The committee is a subset of the UNHRC. Its purpose is to write a legally binding protocol to ICERD. The protocol will make criticism of Islam a criminal offense in international law.  The Obama administration just endorsed that damnable program of action which directly contravenes the First Amendment. The details are contained in a series of blog posts.

• Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper 08/04/09  The cmte. President’s outline of the program of censorship. This document is crucial to comprehending the related posts which follow in this list.
• Ad Hoc Committee: African Submission 08/03/09  Detailed analysis of the Africa group’s proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Cmte USA Submission 08/03/09 This nation is governed by irrational idiots & traitors. Read it and weep.
• Ad Hoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission 08/03/09  Detailed analysis of the OIC’s proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Committee: Iranian Submission 08/03/09 Detailed analysis of Iran’s proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards 08/01/09  They aim to add a protocol to ICERD to criminalize these blog posts.

The various national submissions to the committee are contained in this pdf file: Outline for the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards Consultations.  The Non-Paper Paper, which makes the objective crystal clear, is contained in this pdf file: http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/7750.pdf.

CUFI’s Indictment of Ahmadinejad

Christians United For Israel want you to sign and send a missive to Ban Ki-moon & Susan Rice urging referral of Iran’s President to the International Criminal Court on charges of incitement to genocide.  I have sent mine; I urge you to join me by clicking the link above and filling out the simple form.  I have reproduced the first and last paragraphs of the email below.

We, the undersigned, urge you to immediately call upon the United Nations Security Council to refer the case of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to the International Criminal Court for prosecution of the crime of incitement to genocide. An application of international law to Ahmadinejad’s statements and actions demonstrates the urgent and compelling case for such a prosecution.

Had the world listened to Hitler’s words and watched his actions, the Holocaust could have been prevented. The same goes for the words and actions of those who perpetrated the more recent genocides in Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. The time has come to learn from these tragedies. The time has come to apply the wise legal measures adopted to prevent such atrocities. The time has come to indict Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for incitement to genocide.

If not us, who? If not now, when? Lets do it!

Open Doors USA, an Evangelical Christian  organization, has posted a petition urging United Nations member states to reject the annual Defamation of Islam resolution. I have endorsed their petition, whose text is reproduced below, and urge you to endorse, support and publicize it.  For more information about previous Defamation Resolutions, see: UN Bans Criticism of Islam.

I affirm the universal human right to freely chose and express an individual’s religious beliefs.

Accordingly, I urge fellow Member States of the United Nations to focus on protecting the fundamental freedom of individuals to express their religion or beliefs and to oppose the so called “defamation of religions resolutions.”

These resolutions seek to criminalize dissenting ideas and peaceful expression of non-favored religious beliefs. The “defamation of religions” resolutions are in direct infringement of the guarantees to free speech and belief found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

For these reasons, I ask all Member States to vote NO on “defamation of religions resolutions.”

Sarah Palin spoke in Hong Kong,  revealing the depth of her abject ignorance of the enemy which attacked us  eight years ago.  I was unaware of that speech until I read an article titled The Higher You go the Less You Know by Bill Warner.  Warner posted a link to Sarah’s Facebook page, where she revealed the contents of her speech.  Some crucial excerpts follow, interspersed with my critical comments.  Being an equal opportunity offender, I annoy Conservatives as well as Liberals. This will, unavoidably, outrage many of my Conservative friends. At best, this might induce Gov. Palin to learn about Islam and become an informed leader. At worst, it will warn Conservatives away from a candidate who would, if elected, repeat the egregious errors of President G..W. Bush.
[Emphasis added.]

Two weeks ago, America commemorated the 8th anniversary of the savagery of September 11, 2001. The vicious terrorist attacks of that day made clear that what happened in lands far distant from American shores directly affect our security. We came to learn, if we did not know before, that there were violent fanatics who sought not just to kill innocents, but to end our way of life. Their attacks have not been limited to the United States.

Gov. Palin knows of the existence of “violent fanatics” who seek to destroy our way of life. She knows that their attacks occur on a global scope. But does she know that those attacks are motivated by orthodox Islamic doctrine enshrined in the Qur’an and exemplified by Muhammad’s sunna?

They attacked targets in Europe, North Africa and throughout the Middle East. Here in Asia, they killed more than 200 in a single attack in Bali. They bombed the Marriott Hotel and the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. Last year in Mumbai, more than 170 were killed in coordinated attacks in the heart of India’s financial capital. In this struggle with radical Islamic extremists, no part of the world is safe from those who bomb, maim and kill in the service of their twisted vision.

Where have we heard these key words: “radical Islamic extremists” before?  Those are not extremists, they are Salafists, emulating Islam’s founder, who was “made victorious with terror“.  Emulation of the founder in obedience to their deity, is not extremism; it is Islam.  Their “twisted vision” is the vision of Allah & Muhammad; it is Islam as revealed in the Qur’an, exemplified in hadith and codified in Shari’ah. .

This war – and that is what it is, a war – is not, as some have said, a clash of civilizations. We are not at war with Islam. This is a war within Islam, where a small minority of violent killers seeks to impose their view on the vast majority of Muslims who want the same things all of us want: economic opportunity, education, and the chance to build a better life for themselves and their families. The reality is that al Qaeda and its affiliates have killed scores of innocent Muslim men, women and children.

“We are not at war with Islam.” Islam is at war against us. Why have we not declared and reciprocated?  Islam’s scripture, the Qur’an, contains an imperative to fight disbelievers until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped. It contains another imperative to fight Jews & Christians until they are subjugated and make annual extortion payments.  Those imperatives are reflected in Islamic law: Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9.9 and 9.8 respectively.

Muslims who want to live and enjoy productive lives instead of joining the Jihad against us are described by Allah as hypocrites. They will be gathered into Hell along with disbelievers. Allah ordered Muhammad to fight against them. Muhammad was so zealous about Jihad that he cursed those who would abandon it with disgrace, which would  not be lifted from them until they return to their original religion (Jihad).

The reality is that Muslims from Algeria, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries are fighting al Qaeda and their allies today. But this will be a long war, and it will require far more than just military power to prevail. Just as we did in the Cold War, we will need to use all the tools at our disposal – hard and soft power. Economic development, public diplomacy, educational exchanges, and foreign assistance will be just as important as the instruments of military power.

Where Muslims fight Muslims, they are rivals for power, led by men who dream of occupying the Caliph’s throne. When they finish fighting each other, they will return to fighting us.

Our military power will not prevail, unless you are willing to use the ultimate weapon, and with it, erase Islam from the earth. Otherwise, you must fight on the ideological front, with the intention of emancipating Allah’s slaves.

Economic development, like the petrodollars, will only enable the enemy to purchase better weapons. Diplomacy accomplishes nothing; worse, it signals weakness and invites attack. Educational exchange produces educated Mujihideen. Where did Khalid Sheikh Mohammad get his higher education?

We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail.

We can not win in that way! So long as the Afghans are Muslims, slaves of Allah, we have lost and will continue to lose. Shari’ah is the source of their law. Are you familiar with the content of Shari’ah?. Read this provision of Islamic law from Reliance of the Traveller and comprehend Sarah’sr idiotic error. [Emphasis and links added.]

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9.29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace).  After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,”

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).

That is Islamic law, the basis of the Constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Only ignorant fools think we have achieved victory.

Australia rightly reminds us to keep our eye on Southeast Asia, where Indonesia has proved that Islam and democracy can co-exist. Indonesia has fought extremism inside its own border and is consolidating a multi-ethnic democracy that is home to hundreds of millions of Muslims. Those who say Islam and democracy are incompatible insult our friends in Indonesia.

Indonesia is rapidly sliding down the slippery slope of implementing Shari’ah. Indonesia has not proved Islam to be compatible with democracy, because it is not. Islam rejects human law arrived at through democratic consensus. Islam demands Shari’ah, founded on the recitation and sunna of Muhammad.  Allah is sovereign. Once Allah and his Messenger have declared a matter, nobody can question their decision. That attitude is not compatible with democracy.

Because George Bush did not understand Islam, he ordered invasions which cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, accomplishing nothing.  If we elect another ignorant politician to lead us, we will continue down the same path to certain defeat.  We must either educate Sarah Palin or find another charismatic leader who is informed or educable.

American Congress For Truth will present a web cast for legislators, other elected officials and their staff members from 10 am to 5 pm  on Saturday, November 7, 2009. The subject of the web cast is “Radical Islam’s Threat to America.”.  Topics to be discussed include:

• A Basic History of Islam.
• Shariah Islamic law.
• The Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to subvert America.
• Islamist organizations operating in the U.S.
• Shariah finance.
• Strategies and tactics for resisting the advance of radical Islam.

If you are in contact with Sarah, tell her to watch that web cast. At minimum, tell your Representative & senators to watch it. We can not afford to let them continue in ignorance. You can send emails to your legislators without knowing their names or district numbers. http://www.congress.org makes it easy with their free service. Enter your Zip Code, lick the Federal Officials link, and fill in the simple form.

Carefully buried in the middle of the UNHRC’s Orwellian Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution lies an cleverly disguised attack on our right to choose from a free market offering of news and opinion. It is obvious that the Obama administration is overreaching, giving their unfairness doctrine global scope.

The following text appears on page 4 of the UNHRC Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution as part of a list of actions that all states are called upon to perform. [Emphasis added.]

(h) To promote a pluralistic approach to information and multiple points of view by encouraging a diversity of ownership of media and of sources of information, including mass media, through, inter alia, transparent licensing systems and effective regulations on undue concentration of ownership of the media in the private sector;

A Google search for the first 16 words of that paragraph yields only one result, a sure indication that the text is new, not boilerplate from earlier resolutions. Where did it come from? Recalling an earlier blog post which was sparked by an article at World Net Daily, I found the most likely source.

A Center for American Progress report, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” discusses the “Imbalance” in talk radio programming. Their attitude holds talk radio to be unfairly dominated by Conservative talk show hosts; they seek ways and means of increasing the number and proportion of Socialist talk show hosts and broadcast hours. Mark Lloyd, who was involved in writing the report, is the FCC’s new Diversity Czar.
CFAP 06/22/07

The following text appears on page 10 of the pdf file [Pg. 14 of the original.]

We recommend that radio ownership caps be revised as follows:

• National radio ownership by any one entity should not exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations.
• In terms of local ownership, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market, or specifically, more than:
  • Four commercial stations in large markets (a radio market with 45 or more commercial radio stations).
  • Three stations in mid-markets (between30 and 44 total commercial radio stations).
  • Two stations in smaller markets (between 15 and 29 total commercial radio stations).
  • One station in the smallest markets (14 or fewer total commercial radio stations).

It is possible that Egypt suggested item h in that list, but World Information Access, in a report on ownership diversity, serves up this tidbit.

With continual struggle for free private expression in Egyptian media and commonplace restrictions on information deemed damaging or critical of the government Reporters Without Borders rated Egypt 146th out of 169 countries in their media freedom index.

The provision was most likely suggested by the American delegation, and probably came from supporters of the CAP report. The Obama administration is not satisfied with censoring conservative dissent at home, they want to silence conservative dissent throughout the world, giving Socialism a global media monopoly.

If they can shut conservatives out of talk radio, they can close down our blogs as hinted at in page 7 of the resolution and obtain a near total control on the flow of information and opinion. The next step toward tyranny would be precision of the 22^nd Amendment. We need to act now to initiate the process of correcting the fatal error we made last November.Be among the avant guard, get in on the ground floor by joining the movement to Impeach President Obama.

At their October 2, 2009 meeting, the miserably misnamed United Nations Human Rights Council under agenda item 3:

PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL,
POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS,
INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT

passed, without a vote, a draft resolution submitted jointly by Egypt and the United  States, entitled:  Freedom of opinion and expression.

If any resolution has ever been given a more Orwellian title, I am unaware of it. While superficially appearing to recognize and protect freedom of expression, in reality it threatens  that freedom. Eye on the UN has made the resolution available in the form of an eight page pdf file: A/HRC/12/L.l4/Rev.

Since the file was made from a scanned image, FreeOCR.net was used to make text available for quoting, which compelled the complete reconstruction of the document’s format. I have retained the original spelling. The resolution makes reference to two external documents:

• the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
• the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (A/I-IRC/11/4).

The pattern of deception begins in the preamble. [Emphasis added.]

Deeply concerned that violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression continue to occur, including increased attacks directed against, and killings of, journalists and media workers, and stressing the need to ensure greater protection for all media professionals and for journalistic sources,

News agencies, human rights groups and decent people are concerned about assaults against and murder of journalists;  the repressive regimes who perpetrate those evil acts are not, theirs are crocodile tears. Egypt has a record of jailing and torturing bloggers.

Stressing the need to ensure that the invocation of national security, including counter-terrorism, is not used unjustifiably or arbitrarily to restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression,

That appears to be a reference to the Patriot Act. I  am not aware of any offenses against freedom of expression being carried out under its provisions. Muslims love to unjustly accuse us of using national security as a cover for imaginary repression of Muslims.

Stressing also the importance of the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information, including the fundamental importance of access to information, democratic participation, accountability and combating corruption,

Stressing importance of freedom? No, stretching the truth  past the shear point. The resolution is designed to impair our freedom to receive and impart information.

Recognizing the importance of all forms of the media, including the printed media, radio, television and the Internet, in the exercise, promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression,

That is boilerplate. Observe the following text lifted from The right to freedom of opinion and expression Human Rights Resolution 2005/38.

Recognizing the importance of all forms of the media, including the print media, radio, television and the Internet, in the exercise, promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression,

In point #9,  they skim lightly over the truth, almost exposing it to view.

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 at the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and at 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;

Racism

The media can make a positive contribution to the fight against racism, … related intolerance…   Those are code words for ‘Islamophobia’.
The following quote is from Preliminary document of the African Regional Conference Preparatory to the Durban Review Conference

Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;

‘Islamophobia’ is  code for opposition to Islamic supremacism, triumphalism, conquest, genocide & terrorism.  Phobia implies irrational fear or loathing. but there is nothing irrational about loathing a war cult that has murdered 270 million people in the last 1386 years.

Negative Stereotypes

Combating defamation of religions revised draft resolution

7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

• O11.5 [Reliance of the Traveller]

  Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

  -1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

  -2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

  -3- are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum”;

  -4- must keep to the side of the street;

  -5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

  -6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

  -7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

  (For further information about Islam’s human rights violations, download Islam vs Human Rights.)

Agreed Draft Resolution on the Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief

13. Also emphasixes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned,

• We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve 3:151
• I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes 8:12
• So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson. 8:57
• Make ready then against them what force ye can, and strong squadrons whereby ye may strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy, 8:60
• I have been made victorious with terror Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220

Recalling that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, in accordance with article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Telling the truth about Islam, as revealed by its own canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence is not slander. It does not violate anyone’s rights, and affects only the reputation of  Islam.  Public order is not disturbed by revealing Islam’s pecadillos, it is disturbed by the Muslim’s reaction to revelation of the truth: riots incited by rabble rousing Imams at Juma Prayer meetings.

Recalling also that States should encourage free, responsible and mutually respectful dialogue,

1. Reaffirms the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular the right of everyone to hold opinions  without interference, as well as the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media  of their choice, and the intrinsically linked rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, peaceful assembly and association and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs;
2. Takes note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (A/HRC/l 1/4), as well as his presentation and the interactive dialogue thereon at its eleventh session;

Following a meeting on 9 December 2008, as part of the Global Forum on World Media
Development (held 7-10 December 2008 in Athens), the Special Rapporteur, along with the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the
Media, Miklos Haraszti, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on
Freedom of Expression, Catalina Botero, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’
Rights Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Faith Pansy
Tlakula, issued a joint declaration on defamation of religions, and anti-terrorism and
anti-extremism legislation. The declaration noted that the concept of “defamation of religions”
did not accord with international standards regarding defamation and that restrictions on freedom
of expression should be limited in scope to the protection of overriding individual rights and
social interests. Restrictions should never be used to protect particular institutions or abstract
notions, concepts or beliefs, including religious ones. The declaration further noted that
restrictions on freedom of expression to prevent intolerance should be limited in scope to
advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,
hostility or violence and it encouraged the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council to
desist from further adoption of statements supporting the idea of defamation of religions.
[Pg. 8, #24]

The Special Rapporteur notes that freedom of expression is the manifestation of cultures,
cultural diversity, religion and ideologies. Therefore, the right to freedom of expression should
be approached with a positive view to defending it. Existing international instruments establish a
specific limit on freedom of expression. In particular, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights provides that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law”. The main
challenge thus lies in identifying at which point these thresholds are reached. A broad
interpretation of these limitations, which has recently been suggested in international forums, is
not in line with existing international instruments and would ultimately jeopardize the full
enjoyment of human rights. Limitations to the right to freedom of opinion and expression have
more often than not been used by States as a means to restrict criticism and silence dissent.
[Pg. 11, #39]

Limitations on freedom of expression should be clearly defined and provided by law.
Limitations should not threaten the exercise of the right itself. In addition, they ought to be
necessary and proportionate to the objective they propound to achieve, and should include the
least intrusive means insofar as freedom of expression is concerned, to prevent a chilling effect.
The adjudication of such limitations should be made by an independent judiciary. [Pg. 11, #40]

1. Also expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents;

Advocacy of  Religious Hatred

Sounds terrible, does it not?  But the level of abstraction is excessive; lets bring it down to the concrete by displaying its meaning in the real world.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

The man chiefly responsible for enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that there is no right to tell the truth about Islam. [Emphasis added for clarity.] Fitna is not hate speech nor is it incitement; it accurately depicts Islamic hate speech and incitement.

The pending  trial of Geert Wilders on charges of hate speech is a prime example of  the violation of freedom of expression intended by the sponsors of this resolution.

#5 “Calls upon states”,. among other things to:

h. To promote a pluralistic approach to information and multiple points of view by encouraging a diversity of ownership of media and of sources of information, including mass media, through, inter alia, transparent licensing systems and effective regulations on undue concentration of ownership of the media in the private sector;

That gem of bureaucracy is in line with Mark LLoyd’s The Center for American Progress report, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” which  discusses the “Imbalance” in talk radio programming. Their attitude holds talk radio to be unfairly dominated by Conservative talk show hosts; they seed ways and means of increasing the number and proportion of Socialist talk show hosts and broadcast hours.

Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters.

License renewal previously required local engagement with the community—the solicitation of local feedback on programming and accountable public reporting of this input so that the FCC could determine if the broadcaster was upholding its public interest responsibilities.  Now licenses are renewed by “postcard,” a stamp in the corner of a scrap of paper now substitutes for all of the local interaction, very little of which is still required by law. Without these policies fostering local responsiveness, the move toward lowest common denominator syndicated programming was facilitated.

When you read that report, you will learn that shortening the renewal period, imposing local advisory boards and transferring ownership to minorities are intended to reduce the airing of criticism of  President Obama’s Socialist agenda.

Media Self Censorship

1. Recognizes the moral and social responsibilities of the media and the importance that the media’s own elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct can play in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

The code words for ‘Islamophobia’ make another appearance. It is obvious that #8 is a demand for self censorship by the media.

Orwellian Doublespeak

1. Reaffirms the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy, combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in line with relevant provisions of international human rights law

Freedom of expression has a positive role in combating ‘Islamophobia’. Yeah, right,  we are free to praise Islam, but not to accurately describe and condemn it.

1. Recognizes that the open public debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national, and international levels, can be among the best protections against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and can play a positive role in strengthening democracy and combating national, racial or religious hatred;

Open public debate of ideas is impossible when some ideas are proscribed by law or regulations. The authors of this resolution seek to outlaw all criticism of Islam, making it illegal to reveal the fact that Islam is a war cult, not a “religion of peace”. They would outlaw revealing the foundational aspects of Jihad, genocide & terrorism.  They would not allow us to discuss Islamic laws which oppress and discriminate against women and religious  minorities.  They would silence us when we write about the insidious encroachments of Shari’ah, lawfare & demographic conquest.

While seeking to infringe on free expression, they falsely assert that they are protecting it. President Bush made a show of being on the outside, condemning the UNHRC’s attacks against free speech. President Obama has joined our attackers and is actively participating in an attempt to censor us.

Take Action!

The time for taking action has come. I urge my readers to visit the web site of a new movement to Impeach President Obama and join the movement.  President Obama is obviously part of the problem, not part of the solution.  This on line petition for Impeachment has 3,355 signatures add your signature to the list and urge everyone you can influence to endorse the petition.

The United Nations has been taken over by the enemy and is being used against us. There is no real possibility of reforming it. Now is the time to get out of that perverted institution. I urge you to sign, publicize and promote the Quit the U.N petition.

The evil doctrines of Islam including Jihad, genocide, terrorism and supremacism are static violations of ICCPR, ICERD & CPPCG.
The International Qur’an Petition contains sufficient evidence to substantiate that charge. It prays to the World Court for injunctive relief. Please endorse it, send it to your Congressman & Senators and to everyone in your email address book.  The International Qur’an Petition is our best way to turn their own tactics against them. If not now when? If not us, Who?  If we do not unite and apply great political pressure, we will loose our liberty forever. We must not let that happen!

Related Blog Posts

The following blog posts contain information about related resolutions and  documents.

• Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards
• Ad Hoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission
• Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper
• Durban II: Revised; Reject it!
• UN Resolutions Revisited: Defamation of Religions
• U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 7