Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping…


The 3rd Committee action predicts similar action in the General Assembly next month.  This is a continuation of one branch of the OIC’s ten year plan. The objective is to pass and enforce international and national legislation to criminalize, prohibit and punish all criticism and questioning of Islam.

Because the tyrants and clerics know that Islam is false & malignant, they can not tolerate any expression which might raise doubts among the Ummah.  Read this well documented essay to discover how Moe dealt with one of his critics.

To examine the Shari’ah relevant to blasphemy, follow these links:


current resolutions

Two relevant resolutions were recently approved by acclamation in the 3rd Cmte.  and are expected to be approved by the General Assembly in December ’11.  I present titles, links, and a few pertinent paragraphs for your examination..

  • A/C.3/66/L.48/Rev.1
  • Promotion and protection of human rights: human
    rights questions, including alternative approaches
    for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights
    and fundamental freedoms
    • Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based
      on religion or belief
6. Strongly condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of
print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means;
10. Also emphasizes 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;
(b) Incidents of religious hatred, discrimination, intolerance and violence,
which may be manifested by the derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and
stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief;

(j) To take all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with
international standards of human rights, to combat hatred, discrimination,
intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance
based on religion or belief, as well as incitement to hostility and violence, with
particular regard to members of religious minorities in all parts of the world;

advocacy of religious hatred

      What does that mean?  The expression is so broad and ambiguous as to be stretched over anything we say or write. See the Ban Ki-moon quote about Fitna. 

no religion should be equated with terrorism

That boilerplate expression from previous resolutions should trigger alarm bells.  Who perpetrated the accursed abomination?  Were they Buddhists?  Were they Jews?  Were they Baptists?  No, they were Muslims!

Why  is Islam associated with Terrorism?  Maillot, New York, Madrid, London, Beslan & Mumbai: Get a  clue!!!  “Allahu akbar!” They shouted the takbir when they mounted their attacks.  Why?

Mohammad Atta, in his final message to the Magnificent 19, directed them to shout the Takbir while slaughtering because it terrifies disbelievers.
Psychological warfare

When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.

Where did Atta get that brilliant idea? From his role model, of course.

Sahih Bukhari 4.52.195
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet set out for Khaibar and reached it at night. He used not to attack if he reached the people at night, till the day broke. So, when the day dawned, the Jews came out with their bags and spades. When they saw the Prophet; they said, “Muhammad and his army!” The Prophet said, Allahu–Akbar! (Allah is Greater) and Khaibar is ruined, for whenever we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then it will be a miserable morning for those who have been warned.”

 

I will cast terror.

Allah cast terror.

Jews more afraid of Moe than of Allah

to strike terror

  • 8:57 (Dr. Munir Munshey)
  • 8:60 (Yusuf Ali)

victory through terror

  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
    Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
    The Prophet said, “I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
    1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.
    2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
    3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
    4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
    5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.
  • 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).

  • A/C.3/66/L.47/Rev.1
    • Promotion and protection of human rights: human
      rights questions, including alternative approaches for
      improving the effective enjoyment of human rights
      and fundamental freedoms
      • Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping,
        stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and
        violence against persons, based on religion or belief
Underlining the importance of education in the promotion of tolerance, which
involves the acceptance by the public of and its respect for religious and cultural
diversity, including with regard to religious expression, and underlining also the fact
that education, in particular at school, should contribute in a meaningful way to
promoting tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or
belief,

 

1. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of derogatory
stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion
or belief, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations
and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious
groups, in particular when condoned by Governments

2. Expresses concern that the number of incidents of religious intolerance,
discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of
individuals on the basis of religion or belief, continues to rise around the world,
condemns, in this context, any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to
take effective measures, as set forth in the present resolution and consistent with
their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such
incidents;
3. Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audiovisual
or electronic media or any other means;

(f) Adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence
based on religion or belief;
(g) Understanding the need to combat denigration and the negative religious
stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and
harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through,
inter alia, education and awareness-raising;

(d) To make a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is
understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting
questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures;

education

      Indoctrination! They want our schools to inculcate tolerance for that which is absolutely intolerable: a war cult which seeks to conquer or kill us.

incidents of intolerance

Including Fitna, the Motoons and Rev. Jones trying & burning the Qur’an.  Refer to the OIC’s Islamophobia Observatory for examples.

advocacy of hatred

Recall the remarks of Ban Ki-moon on Fitna.

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.”

 

incitement to imminent violence

          Recall the remarks of Ban Ki-moon on Fitna, quoted above.  Ban equates exposure of incitement to incitement.

religious profiling

Why waste time patting down Granny when all recent terror plots have been hatched or perpetrated by young Muslim males?  When you hear hoof beats, do you look for horses or unicorns?

They want to make it illegal to utter and publish any negative information about Islam.  They want to block our security personnel from scrutinizing those most likely to perpetrate terror attacks.  In fine, they are trying to disarm and disable us so that we can not mount an effective defense against their jihad.

Take Action!

Go to http://www.congress.org/ , create a free account, enter your Zip Code and tell your Representative & Senators to require the State Department to demand a vote on these resolutions and vote NO! in the General Assembly.  And share this information with everyone who will read or listen.

These resolutions have no legal force, but they have the effect of legitimizing national blasphemy laws which are used to persecute indigenous religious minorities in lands conquered and dominated by Muslims.   These resolutions are a stepping stone to their tactical objective: amending ICERD to make all questioning and criticism an offense punishable by law.

November 27, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CAIR Denounces Santorum’s Call for Profiling


CAIR Denouces Santorum’s Call For Profiling

One of my Google Alerts was triggered by an article about a CAIR press
release demanding that the GOP denounce Rick Santorum’s debate answer
on profiling. Video of the debate segment is linked below, and embedded
where possible.  Play it twice, once to listen and once to watch
the facial expressions and gestures, particularly those of Rep. Paul
and Herman Cain.

The text of CAIR’s  press release and my
analysis follow the video. Thanks and a tip of the hat to Breitbart!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va6PVE7QkUY


WASHINGTONNov. 23, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/
— The Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR) today called on
the
Republican Party to
repudiate
GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum‘s
call for profiling of American Muslims.

In
a debate aired on CNN last night, Santorum was asked if he would
support ethnic and religious profiling. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer,
the debate’s moderator, asked Santorum: “So just to be precise, is it
ethnic profiling, religious profiling, who would be profiled
?”

“The
folks who are most
likely to be committing
these crimes,” replied
Santorum. “Obviously
Muslims
would be someone you’d look at,
absolutely.”

Video:
Rick Santorum Calls for Profiling of Muslims

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va6PVE7QkUY

In
a statement released today, CAIR National Legislative Director Corey Saylor said:

“Last
night, Rick
Santorum
 casually
tossed aside every American’s constitutional right to
equal protection

under the law in favor of discriminatory profiling of Muslims. Mr.
Santorum’s obvious lack of appreciation for the
Constitution
and for
the rejection of
profiling by top law enforcement experts
raises
reasonable questions
about his ability to lead our multi-faith nation
.

“The
International
Association of Chiefs of Police and other security
specialists
reject racial profiling. President Bush called it
‘wrong.

In 2009, President Obama
pledged to end the counterproductive practice
.

“We
remind Mr. Santorum that the Prophet Jesus (peace be
upon him), a man of Middle Eastern heritage, would fit his ‘profile
.’

“It
is time for all Republican presidential candidates to reject
Islamophobic rhetoric. Just as past candidates have learned the folly
of targeting other religious or ethnic minorities, serious presidential
hopefuls must reject the use anti-Muslim smears
and the exploitation of
Islamophobia for cheap political gain.”

CAIR
also thanked another GOP presidential candidate, Representative Ron Paul of Texas, for
rejecting profiling and refusing to sacrifice the rule of law.

A
CAIR Legislative Fact Sheet states that profiling is
unconstitutional
,
hinders anti-terrorism efforts and “diverts precious law
enforcement
resource
s away from investigations of individuals who have been
linked
to terrorist activity by specific and credible evidence.”

SEE:
CAIR Legislative Fact Sheet on Profiling

http://tinyurl.com/7wf3v7y

Earlier
this year, Santorum called “Sharia,” or Islamic
principles, “evil.
” He told a group in New Hampshire:
“We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil.” In a past
“lecture on Islam,” Santorum falsely claimed the Quran, Islam’s
revealed text, was written in “Islamic.”

SEE:
Santorum, GOP Continue Anti-Sharia Campaign

http://tinyurl.com/4ml97xd

Last
week, CAIR called on state and national GOP leaders to demand the
resignation of a Tennessee lawmaker
after he suggested in a radio interview that U.S. Muslims should “go
back to where they came from” if they objected to his recent call for
the removal of all Muslims serving in the military.

CAIR:
TN GOP Rep. Tells Muslims to ‘Go Back to Where They Came From’

http://bit.ly/uetuEF

A
number of recent reports have documented the disturbing growth and
promotion of Islamophobia in American society.

CAIR:
Same Hate, New Target

http://tinyurl.com/66enzm8

Center for American Progress: Fear, Inc.

http://tinyurl.com/7cozjxg

Southern Poverty Law Center: Jihad Against Islam

http://tinyurl.com/3qsv2v8

People for the American Way: The Right-Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim
Extremism

http://tinyurl.com/6j9fttw

CAIR
is America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization.
Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage
dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build
coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

CONTACT:
CAIR National Legislative Director Corey
Saylor
, 202-384-8857, E-Mail: csaylor@cair.com;
CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim
Hooper
, 202-744-7726, or 202-488-8787, E-Mail: ihooper@cair.com;
CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina
Rubin
, 202-488-8787, 202-341-4171, E-Mail: arubin@cair.com

SOURCE
Council on American-Islamic Relations

 

called on GOP to repudiate

The days of the smoke filled room backstage at the
national convention are long gone.  The real nominating process
belongs to the party membership, not to the hierarchy.  Condemning
stands taken by candidates is not the role of the RNC or the state
central committees.

CAIR is engaging in intimidation tactics, trying to
cast terror into the hearts of nervous Nellie political consultants who
conceive of political correctness as holy writ.  The RNC, Santorum
and the rational candidates should denounce CAIR’s political terror
tactics and tell CAIR to sit down, shut up and mind their own business.

I swear that, if the Republican Party surrenders to
CAIR’s outrageous demand, lifting Allah’s tail and inserting their
tongues, I will not vote for any Republican candidate who does not
explicitly condemn Islam.

profiling of American Muslims

That  is a prime example of misdirection.
Attention of security personnel should be focused on Muslims, regardless of
nationality
.
While 9/11 was perpetrated by foreigners, many of the recent plots
involved American citizens.  When you hear hoof beats, do you look
for unicorns or horses?

just to be precise

Precise questioning is a good thing, particularly in
court rooms, but in this case, what appears
on the surface, to be  precision
is entrapment.  A genuine precision question would not include
“precise” in its rhetoric.  I have no doubt that Blitzer was
setting Santorum up for this.

ethnic || religious: who would be profiled

That question misdirects attention away from the
real issue.  Terrorism is an intrinsic function of Islam, not
primarily linked to nationality or race.  Most recent mass
casualty terror attacks have been perpetrated by Muslims.

Islam is neither a race nor a religion; it is a way
of life which dictates every facet of human life, spiritual &
temporal. Islam has inseverable & interdependent  religious,
economic and military components. All of those components involve jihad. Jihad is the preferred alternative to trade &
agriculture economies.

Little old Catholic ladies and Baptist babies do not
commit terror attacks, young Muslim men do. That should be a clue for
you.  Rep. Paul cites Timothy McVeigh, the exception which proves
the rule.  How many nitrate bombs have been planned or planted by
lapsed Catholics?  Compare that to the number of improvised
explosive devices planned or planted by Muslims.

Muslims come in all colors.  Eliminate
Islam and Islamic terrorism will be eliminated.  If you want
travel to be safe, exclude Muslims from mass transit facilities and
vehicles.  That would impede but not stop the Times Square
Bomber.  To stop the multitude of alternative attack methods and
venues, it is necessary to remove and exclude those persons most likely
to engage in terrorism: Muslims.

most likely to be committing: Muslims

Why would Santorum say that? Baptists,
Buddhists  & Hindus are not turning up in the news for
bombings every month, Muslims are. Why is that?  Who besides Moe
preached and exemplified terrorism to his disciples?  “Its Islam,
stupid!” Why did Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his excellent
companions attack
us?  Get a clue.

Cover page of confession.

First page of confession.

Obviously Muslims

It is obvious to Santorum why is it not obvious to
others?  Is it not common knowledge that Islamic terrorism is
perpetrated by Muslims?  Is it not common knowledge that terror
attacks are an act of worship?  Is it not common knowledge that
Allah commanded casting terror into the hearts of enemies?  Is it
not common knowledge that disbelievers are the enemies of
Muslims?  Those facts are objectively true, why are they not
common knowledge?  The answers are political correctness and
intimidation.

constitutional right to equal protection

Equal protection of the laws means no class
distinctions; nobody is punished or immunized based on his social or
economic status.  Equal protection  means that Baptists,
Catholics & atheists are all protected from Islamic terror attacks
by excluding terrorists from places where innocent people
congregate.

Applying extra scrutiny to those persons most likely
to engage in terror attacks does not deny equal protection of the laws.
It does not impair anyone’s constitutional rights. One bright Tuesday
in September, ’01, several thousand people had their right to life
denied by Muslims who hijacked aircraft.  Keeping those Muslims
off of those flights would not have impaired any rights.  Keeping
them out of this nation would not have impaired anyone’s rights.

appreciation for the Constitution

The Constitution provides protection for the right
to life and the right to free speech. It is CAIR, not Santorum who
lacks appreciation for those rights. CAIR demands censorship of all
criticism of Islam.  CAIR applies intimidation tactics to close
private venues to those who speak out against it.  CAIR seeks to
deny effective protection from terror attacks.  This is a prime
example of hypocrisy & projection.

law enforcement experts

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Terrorism is a military issue, not a law enforcement issue.  Had
all Muslims been excluded from all domestic flights as they should be,
the Accursed Abomination would have been impossible; 3000 people would
be alive and healthy.   Why has Israel not lost any aircraft
recently?  How did they stop hijackings and prevent flying
bombs?  If you want to stop air based terrorism, consult Israel’s
experts forst.

lead our multi-faith nation

How do the leadership requirements vary between
monocultural and multicultural nations?  What difference does it
make to the Presidency whether we have no, 1, 2 or any number of
religions?

The President can not lead Muslims. Muslims are
commanded not to place themselves in positions subordinate to kuffar.
Take a close look at Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:51 Surah At-Taubah 9:33.  Shari’ah declares
non-Arabs to be unsuitable marriage partners for Muslimas “because “Allah has chosen the Arabs above others“.
Get a clue.

security specialists reject racial profiling

Is Islam a race? Allah has enslaved people of all
races, so what race is Islam?  Did race play a role in the acts of
the “shoe bomber” & “underwear bomber”? They are different racially
but both are Muslim. Get a clue.

wrong

What Shrub said is not relevant; he is out of office
and ineligible to run again. Being a fool who said “Islam is a great religion of peace“,
he has no probative authority.  Exactly what is wrong with
scrutinizing Muslims in the airport lines?  Exactly what is wrong
with determining the religious affiliation of persons with Arab &
Asiatic appearance in airport lines?

counterproductive practice

Four of our aircraft were hijacked and deliberately
crashed in ’01; how many Israeli aircraft were hijacked in that
year?  Exactly what is counter productive about profiling?
If a white man robs a bank do you draw black men into a dragnet?
Get a clue.

Prophet Jesus … would fit his ‘profile

The AssWholliness
of that blasphemy is outrageous!  Jesus Christ is not a prophet of
Islam. Which of his teachings do Muslims teach in the mosques and
practice? Jesus Christ did not reveal the obligation of offensive
conquest. Jesus Christ did not reveal the need to exterminate Jews.  Jesus Christ
neither sanctified nor exemplified terrorism.  Jesus Christ is not a genocidal warlord.

Jesus was born to a descendant of King David; His
heritage is Jewish, not Arab. Jesus Christ taught Judaism in the Jewish
Temple, not Islam in a mosque. The place of his birth is Israel, not
Falestine.

reject Islamophobic rhetoric

There is nothing phobic about loathing of Islam
which is well founded in objective factual reality. Islam is perpetual war.  Muslims, motivated
by Allah’s threat & promise,
perpetrated the Hindu, Armenian & Assyrian genocides. Those who
perpetrated recent atrocities in New York, London & Beslan
shouted  “Allahu Akbar”, not “Jesus is Lord”. Get a clue.

I swear that I will not vote for any candidate who
lifts Allah’s tail and inserts his tongue by accepting CAIR’s
outrageous demand.

profiling is unconstitutional

Prove it. Show us the constitutional provision which
explicitly forbids it.

diverts precious law enforcement resources

Resources are wasted by searching, scanning and
harassing kuffar children and their grandmothers. Resources are wasted
by random searches. Resources are wasted by not excluding Muslims from
mass transit so that the whole TSA program could be scrapped.

linked to terrorist activity

I will
cast terror
.”.  “Allah
cast terror…
“. “…That is because they suffer neither thirst nor
fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise
the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy
but
is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness….”. “I have been made victorious with terror“.
“…Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest?
Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except
disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they
shall be consigned to the most grievous torment….” Islam is terrorist
activity; Muslims are linked to it by Allah’s yoke of slavery.

Santorum called “Sharia,” or Islamic principles, “evil”

Santorum spoke the truth. Examine the evidence;
see for yourself.  Shari’ah imposes cruel & unusual
punishment. Shari’ah mandates annual military attacks against
disbelievers. Shari’ah declares that the caliph makes war upon Jews,
Christians and Zoroastrians. Shari’ah denies religious freedom,
equality and dignity.

November 24, 2011 Posted by | CAIR, GWB, GWOT, Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Political Correctness, Politics | , , , | 1 Comment

Cnn National Security Debate: Candidates fall short


Wolf Blitzer asked good questions and persevered with follow ups without overt gotcha questions. On the down side, he went to breaks promising to return to the question and get a broader response, then asked a new question after the break.  I wonder whether someone higher up was dictating that behavior or Wolf was being loose with his rhetoric.

The major difference between this debate and the AFA debate last Saturday is that the entire debate was devoted to national security issues.  Better late than never.

I readily admit my opposition to Huntsman, Perry, Paul & Romney, but even a stopped clock is right twide every 24 hours.  Huntsman said that we need to find a balance between security and liberty and that the state and federal governments must cooperate against terrorists. I do not view security against terror attacks and liberty as antagonists. I see the former as a necessary foundation for the latter.  Citizens of states and members of organizations inimical to America should not expect perfect privacy nor should their contacts and close associates.

When the CIA find names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses on documents in terrorist training camps, or in the possession of captured terrorists, exploiting that information with surveillance, wire taps & intercepts  is not an assault on or threat to liberty, it is essential to national security. That is why I support maintaining and strengthening the Patriot Act.

In the most recent bomb plot case, the FBI declined to get involved, leaving the case to the locals. I doubt that FBI participation would have made a major difference, but I don’t have all the facts. What would have happened if the NYC PD shared their attitude about the suspect and dropped the investigation?

Huntsman stated the obvious: that sanctions against Iran & Syria won’t work because of Chinese & Russian opposition. He is right about that.  I am firmly convinced that sanctions would fail even if they had global support & cooperation in their enforcement.

At the end of the debate, Huntsman said named China as the major unrecognized foreign  threat and unemployment & debt as domestic threats stemming from a lack of leadership. He is right about that but events and trends in Latin America, particularly alliance with Iran and Hezbollah also require attention.

Huntsman favored foresight over hindsight, saying that history will tell the outcome of the “Arab spring”. He seemed to be critical of President Obama’s neglect of the Green Revolution in Iran and intervention in Libya.  He implied that we should be more deliberate. I say, that when two Islamic enemies of ours fight each other, we should be spectators, not in the corner of either.

Huntsman said that terrorism is permanent, meaning that it poses a continuing threat for the long term. Of course, he was stating the obvious.  We need to look beyond the burning trees to the burning forest;    bring on the bulldozers,

He said that the deficit hampers growth, which is true. Unfortunately, growth is the only way out of the deficit.  Wasteful spending must be stopped.

Asked about the efficacy of drone attacks in Pakistan in defeating al-Qaeda, Huntsman said that Washington is dysfunctional, that we need a Washington that works and should bring our troops home from Afghanistan. He restated the obvious about Pakistan without proposing a solution. Of course, there is no solution, short of the ultimate solution. which nobody is willing to implement.

Paul called the Patriot Act “unpatriotic”, that it exchanges liberty for security.  Paul wants to know what we’d do if a terrorist looked like Tim McVeigh.  That straw man argument must be refuted. Tim’s partner had a Filipino wife; their test bombs did not work until after the partner visited his wife and presumably met with al-Qaeda bomb makers to get technical advice.  The infamous “third terrorist” was described as looking like an Iraqi.

How many of the recent terrorists were not Muslims and either Asiatic or Arabian?  Yes, they are recruiting Caucasians, but those terrorists all have one thing in common. They are Muslims.  Profiling is not the answer.  Pat downs are not the answer. Body scanners are not the answer. Identify Muslims and exclude them from mass transit terminals & vehicles.  If you want to prevent terrorism, get the Muslims out of here, away from us.   We need a candidate and nominee who will abandon pc and state the obvious truth.  Islamic terrorism is a function  of Islamic doctrine; texts & teachings, not age, race, gender or national origin.  Allah said that he would “cast terror”. Allah said that he “cast terror”. Allah said that believers are only those who “fight in his cause”, “killing others and being killed”.  Moe said that he was made victorious with terror. Muslims get Brownie Points for “any step” taken to “injure or enrage” disbelievers.  What part of that do the candidates not comprehend?  Has any of them read the Qur’an & hadith?  Terrorism is an act of worship! If you need to obtain a clue, read the confession of Khalid Sheik Mohammed & associates.

Paul said that he would not participate in an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuke project, that we need to get out of Israel’s way, mentioning their supposed possession of nuclear armed missiles.  Who will be the first to explore the ramifications of that last bit?  Green light, anyone?  That begged for a follow up question,

`   Paul referred to the Iraq & Afghanistan as needless and unnecessary wars.  When a nation sponsors an attack that kills 3000 and does billions of dollars in property damage, retaliation is necessary to deter further attacks. Exterminating the principals who dispatched  the attackers and their support network is necessary to prevent further attacks.   Retaliating against Afghanistan & Iraq was necessary but insufficient.  Peace and security will not be established without the total elimination of the root cause of terrorism: Allah’s word and those who believe it.  Unfortunately for those who love to chant “racist, bigot, Nazi, hater, Islamophobe”, there is ample evidence to substantiate my statement of objective factual reality.  If you doubt this, obtain a clue from Allah’s perfected, immutable word: 8:12, 39,  57, 60 , 65, 9:5,29, 38, 39, 111, 120, 123, 33:26, 27, 59:2, 13, 61:10-12 & Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 from whence issue war & terror. Reasonable and rational readers will click those links and scroll down to the successive ayat; bigots will not.  I can point a fool to wisdom but I can’t make him read.

Perry would privatize the TSA and strengthen the Patriot act. Not without a super majority of Conservatives in both houses! He says that we should remain involved with foreign aid, but not write blank checks, apparently feeling heat for suggestions of zero sum foreign aid budgets. He wants to use every possible sanction against Iran, including cutting off the central bank.  The problem is that sanctions do not work. Iran will have enough fissile material to produce a bomb within one year. Sanctions take months to implement, running us out of time without accomplishing anything.

Romney wants a slower drawdown in Afghanistan instead of a precipitous withdrawal. He wants to drag them toward modernity. He wants to prevent Afghanistan from reverting to a launching pad for terrorism.  If we stay, they bleed us to death in a war of attrition, exploiting domestic impatience.  If we leave, they return to status quo ante.  We are in this bind because Shrub needed to nuke Afghanistan but invaded instead. Romney appears to be oblivious to the fact that nothing can be accomplished while the population and government of Afghanistan remain Islamic.

Romney cites failed leadership; how about failure to submit a budget?  He says that cutting men and material weakens our defense. Kind of obvious, ain’t it?
Bachmann says that terrorists should not be Mirandized and that Obama has turned interrogation over to the ACLU.  She calls Pakistan the “epicenter of terrorism” and unstable, mentioning that there are fifteen vulnerable nuclear weapons sites.  She would continue aid but wants more return on investment; no “blank check”.

Bachmann opposes amnesty for illegal aliens and the Dream Act. She favors visas for highly skilled technicians.She agrees with Gingrich on the urgent necessity of energy independence so that we can overcome the threat of oil cut off from Iran. She says that Obama’s failed policy of appeasement has changed the course of history. She declares Iran’s promise to eradicate Israel to be real, not an idle threat.

Bachman said that Obama is giving away our victory in Iraq.  She lists al-Shebab as an emerging threat already manifesting in her state. .  .

Cain. wants to keep and improve the Patriot Act and agreed with Santorum on profiling. He would privatize the TSA. He wants to use every means possible to identify terrorists.  How do you determine which skunk will spray or which snake will bite?  You avoid all of them, don’t you?  What common association did all the recent attackers share?

Cain’s response when asked about helping Israel neutralize Iran’s nuclear bomb program was that he would join the attack if Israel had good intelligence on the locations of the facilities, a good plan, good chance of success and definition of victory. He opposes precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan.  He wants clear goals before sending foreign aid, emphasizing priority, efficiency and results.

Cain says that we know that terrorists have entered from Mexico, so we must secure the border for real. . He says we need to reform the naturalization process and allow states to enforce immigration laws.   Cain won’t support a no fly zone over Syria. He lists EMP and cyber attacks among the emerging threats  to be contended with.

Gingrich emphasized the difference between domestic crime and terrorism, which is war. He would strengthen, not eliminate the Patriot Act. In the matter of Pakistan taking offense at our elimination of bin Ladin, Gingrich said that we should be furious about Pakistan’s hiding him.  He said that hot pursuit should be allowed, there should be no sanctuaries.  He would overhaul the CIA.  He said that Pakistan should help us or get out of the way.

Europe won’t back us on sanctioning Iran because they are dependent on Iranian oil. Gingrich would have us increase domestic production enough to replace Iran’s European exports in the case of a boycott.  He would bomb their nuclear program only as a last resort if regime change was an assured outcome.

Gingrich mentioned Chili’s social security system as a model for entitlement reform using guaranteed private accounts. Will taking  stand on the third rail wreck his candidacy, go unnoticed or serve as a springboard to the White House?

Gingrich wants to issue a green card to every foreign student  who graduates in math & science.  Did he consider the fact that many of them are Muslims who come from areas where hatred of the U.S.A. is rampant?  He should be more selective. He would the selective service board system as a model for picking the illegal aliens who should be allowed to stay on a path to citizenship. He mentioned community and church membership as criteria for selection.  He might as well stand between lanes on an expressway, he will surely be hit by both sides on this one.

`Santorum  irritated me by  proceeding Islam with “radical”, wasting a word when time is critical. the “debate” parallel press conference format does not afford time for wasted words.  “Radical” implies the existence of a :moderate”, harmless normative Islam, which does not exist and never will.  The enemy is Islam, not “radical Islam”. He mentioned the time and patience factor, that they will wait us out; that Obama is proving them right.  He said that Obama is playing politics with his policy in Afghanistan. That’s stating the obvious.

Santorum supports profiling at airports. Who needs it? Excluding all Muslims from all mass transit vehicles & terminals is the simple solution which would not subject the general public to unnecessary harassment, indignity and delay.   .

Santorum favors continuing foreign aid, particularly for development.  I agree with Santorum that Obama has poisoned the well of compromise, but I disagree that both sides should compromise more.  Appeasing and yielding to Socialists must come to an end.  Our economy needs a cure, not more poison.

November 23, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, Politics | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Iowa Debate: No Guts, No Glory


I missed the debate Saturday night. Monday night I found it on the web, and share the link with you. The program, which began with some introductory speeches and ceremony, runs 178 minutes of which the “debate” takes two hours.

This debate differs from the others because the questioners expressed and exercised respect for the candidates and avoided “gotcha” questions.  Civility prevailed.

There was plenty of emotion in this debate, and a great deal of deliberateness.  While issues of morality, marriage, abortion, education and health care took up most of the time, I am most interested in the final subject of the night, which begins at 158:36.

What follows is strictly an amateurish attempt at transcription.  I type very slowly, and my memory is not the best. I take in a few words, pause the video and type what I have heard before restarting the video. Due to system lag, I lose some audio in the process.   My transcription  is not perfect, but it should be good enough to give you a good idea of what transpired in the last round of answers.

The final question: “Every one of you talked about the importance of preserving life.  Nothing takes life more than the declaration of war. I would like to hear from you, because nothing frightens a mother more, than watching her son or daughter go off …Their pride in their country and their fear for their child…what is–can you define the moral justification for war? …Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria –what is the moral justification? ”

  • Rep. Paul:  The early church struggled with this, I mean, Christ came  and Christ taught about peace and Christ was to be the prince of peace and we were to defend that.  But early on in the church, struggled with this and St. Augustine came up with the principles of the just war.  I believe in and I think we should follow, from the religious viewpoint, that we have a Constitution that is very clear to guide us to try to prevent these wars and that is that we don’t go to war without a declaration .  The wars that we have fought since World War2 were all . illegal, unconstitutional and all were un-winnable and it was tragic– it was tragic, we did it by failing the rule of law and the tragedy let out of these wars the last ten years, that we have been so … added ten billion dollars to our national debt, …Americans have been killed in these wars, 44 thousand have come home wounded and crippled, hundreds of thousands are looking for help and we went to blind ourselves to this.  It is not in our national defense, it is mischief, it is getting involved where we don’t need to be involved.  I think it is an utter tragedy in  what is happening.  You wanna talk about a family life –there has to have been somebody in this audience who has been the bearer of news, either a loved one lost or a loved one crippled.  It is on and on  I had one soldier come to me the other day and he was so against the wars, he spent three or four tours over there, that he says “I lost too many buddies and I don’d know why we were there. ” And theres no signs of progress over there.  He says “now I’m losing my buddies to suicide.”  The wars destroy the family, I’m the …as does the economic climate– the bad economics  — war is the most destructive things to the family and we oughtta concentrate on it and you can’t concentrate on the economics unless we look at the business cycle, why we have inflation busts and booms  otherwise we will continue on a downhill path.
  • Rep. Bachmann I am a mother and I have made  the most difficult calls of my live which has been when servicemen and women have lost their lives in my  congressional district and I have picked up that phone and I’ve called mothers and I’ve called fathers and I have wept with them over the phone because nothing is more difficult to lose than a child.  [Luntz: “So what is the definition–the moral justification for war?”]  The moral justification for war is if the United States is attacked or we are  threatened with attack, then we have a decision that we have to make because the number one duty of the commander in chief is to secure the safety of the American people, that is the duty, and in order to do that, I have to be convinced as commander in chief that we have a clearly defined American vital interest in that area and I need to know that we have a clear mission to go forward. … have a plan and an exit strategy and we go in, I will commit overwhelming force and then we get out. Now some situations are ones where you can have special operations forces and then you have to have the tools to be able to deal with interrogation, which we don’t have now under Obama.  You have to have the capacity for detention, which we don’t have now under President Obama.   But we have to have a clearly defined interest and I think we also have to take advice from George Washington, who told us, rightly so, I’m not an isolationist,  but he said very carefully be very fearful of unnecessary foreign entanglements and if there is anything we have learned from the last twelve years, once you get in, its very difficult to get out.  So you go in wisely.
  • Cain: In the declaration where it says “endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights”,  and then it delineates three of them: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It says that among these are those three, I happen to think that there is another that is implied: the right to protect yourself, your family and to protect your property. So the defense of freedom and the defense of liberty I believe, is the moral justification for going to war. Secondly, as commander in chief, I will not send our young men and women into war unless it is clear why –the mission and the definition of victory… And thirdly, I would not send them into war unless I would send my own and daughter.
  • Gov. Perry: As a former individual who has worn the uniform of his country, as the commander in chief of over twenty thousand troops that are my command today,in the state of Texas with our Guard, I’ve been dealing with this issue for ten years.  And clearly, when America’s interests are in jeopardy, there is a time and a place for us to intervene and intervene militarily.  But when we intervene militarily, we best make the decision of how we are going to win and how we are going to win convincingly and quickly.  Send those young men and women with the equipment to win.  Don’t let some congressman sitting in an air conditioned office  in Washington DC decide what the rules of engagement are.  Let those war fighters win the war.  Let them come home victorious.  That is what the American military man and woman is all about.  And for us to micromanage them in a civilian way without their commanders truly being in charge, is absolutely irresponsible and as commander in chief of this country I will not let it happen.
  • Santorum: Let me maybe try to drill it down to a more practical application.  We are engaged in what many people call the long war.  Americans are known to have a rather short attention span.  As we are a young country, an antique for us is a hundred years old. In the Middle East its two thousand years old. They have a very  different view of time and history.  As a result, when we are engaged in this long war, long to us is not the same as long to them.  What we are facing right now is a, again, read our history– is a thousand year conflict between radical Islam and the West that ended only because of the West’s great technical superiority that was able to defeat them and drive them back and eventually colonize the Middle East. But that changed with one three letter word: oil.  .  Oil allowed the radical elements within the Islamic world to be able to get access to technology, and now we have in the case of Iran, to drill it down even more, a radical theocracy that has been at war with us since 1979.  It has done more to kill our troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan because they are the makers of the IEDs that are killing our troops.  They’ve attacked this country on repeated occasions from the Khobar Towers to …their proxies in Beirut.  They’ve attempted the assassination of an Ambassador.  They have threatened  openly and repeatedly our closest allies.  They hold conventions in Tehran denyiug the Holocaust– in fact most of the aea of the Middle East  now believes that the Holocaust didn’t really occur so there is no justification for the state of Israel.  They are now developing a nuclear weapon. It is now apparent that they are doing so; international agencies, not necessarily the boldest group of folks have suggested that that is the case.  We have a moral obligation to partner with the state of Israel to make … to assure their survival and to make sure that this radical regime that wants to spread its virulent form of radical Islam not just throughout the Middle East but throughout the world is stopped from having the ability to do so with impunity because that’s the thing a nuclear weapon does, it gives you a nuclear shield.  It must be stopped.  I laid out a plan the other day and I know we are short of time that lists four major things that we should be doing: covert activities, sanctions, overturning the regime but also working with Israel right now to plan a military option to strike and destroy these facilities.  And let the Iranians know, that unless they open up their facilities [to inspection] and shut them down, that that is an option that will be used period.
  • Gingrich: First of all In Christian theology, there is a clear development of a concept of just war. which people like Augustine developed because they were seeing the rise of pagans that wee actually threatening the very survival of the country. In fact, Augustine is buried in Italy because hes body was taken out of North Africa when the Christians lost North Africa.  So these things become very real.  My Dad spent twenty seven years in the Army, I watched my mother through that whole period in WW2, Korea and Vietnam.  . I think what makes us different and what makes us in some ways… much more ruthless and much tougher … is we don’t send soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen to war, we send our children, we send our fathers, we send our brothers and sisters; we send our mothers and therefore there is a preciousness to this decision unlike any other country that I know.  I think our position historically …the Declaration of Independence was signed by people who were going to fight an eight year war. It was  a declaration of war in effect.  Washington was in the field eight years with one week at Mount Vernon.  These people who wrote those documents understood the grim reality.  I believe we should not go to war if we can avoid it.  And when we have to go to war we should do so decisively,  with overwhelming power to seek the quickest possible victory and we should in fact be prepared to do whatever it takes to win  when we begin an engagement.  But I think that there is no question …this is the only place where I disagree with some of my friends– you come into our country and you kill 3100 people and we will do whatever it takes to eliminate your capacity to threaten us ever again and I would be tougher and more decisive and I agree entirely with Senator Santorum–I would say to the government of Iran today: we have a very short time to solve … and you should solve it on your own or we will solve it for you and frankly, we couldn’t care less what the rest of the world thinks ; we’re gonna get it done.

In my view, Frank Luntz  probed the candidates for their views  on the morality of our invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq and our intervention in  Libya.  The answers seem to center on just war theory in general and how to bring war to a good end.

Congressman Paul mixed just enough truth into his spiel to make it attractive to the middle range of Morons.  Its a good thing that I was not in the audience, because I would have violated the decorum of the debate by booing.  The fact that wars should be declared, for good cause and with clearly stated objectives should go without saying, it is simply too obvious.  The jerk elevates my blood pressure too much.

As I was listening, Congresswoman Bachmann sounded good. As I review the transcript, I get a sense of disappointment.  When America is threatened or attack, the vital national interest is clear on the face of the matter, no divination is required.  Victory is the exit strategy.  Commitment o overwhelming force is the part I liked, lacking in Afghanistan & Iraq, along with a  sane definition of strategic objectives.

Cain made the right points about cause, clarity and mission definition.  I though his answer was brief and sensible, with just the right amount of emotion, somewhat overstated. I would have omitted the part about sending my own offspring, which would have fitted better if we still had an army of conscripts.

Gov. Perry spoke with passion and conviction, with slightly clumsy rhetoric initially.  If he brought up the issue of defining victory, I overlooked it.  Since Vietnam, the micromanagement seems to me to be Presidential, not Congressional.  President Obama instituted the suicidal rules of engagement from which our troops are currently suffering.

I wish that Santorum would drop the R word; it does not belong in discussions of national security issues.  As the wise man said “Its Islam, stupid!”.  I think that he knows it, and is pandering to the politically correct crowd.  Of course he is correct about the need to support Israel and prevent Iran’s nuclear ascension.

Like Santorum, Gingrich brought in the theological and emotional elements, adding his own historian’s perspective. The good part comes at the end when he said “whatever it takes”.

We got into this bind because, when I was too young to realize what was transpiring, we were terrified of the prospect of nuclear war with Russia & China. We therefore fought a half-assed war in Korea,  unwilling either to suffer an outright loss or exert sufficient force to win.

In Vietnam, we got in, sank in the quagmire, and escalated, once again unwilling to risk all out conflict with Ho Chi Minh’s powerful patrons.  In the end, we allowed the media to defeat us with propaganda.

President Carter began digging our grave when he gave Iran to Khomeini. His dithering while our Embassy staff sat in durance vile and his quarter-assed rescue attempt, which cost more lives,  let the enemy smell blood.

I voted for President Reagan once at least, probably twice, but memory has faded and there is a strong chance that I wrote in Jesus Christ in ’84. The Beirut fiasco caused me to demand that my Congressman introduce articles of impeachment.  In my opinion, nothing contributed more to our present situation than
Reagan’s suicidal blunder.

Sending the Marines to save Arafat’s bacon was a blunder of momentous proportions.  Arafat was an enemy and his defeat was in our short and long term national interest.  Allowing the Beirut Massacre to go unpunished signaled weakness to the enemy, a fatal error.

President Clinton dug the grave deeper and wider by affording impunity to Iran in the Khobar Towers bombing & other incidents, Mogadishu not being the least of them. Sending the Marines without the equipment they needed was a bad idea.

Shrub installed the vault and set up the straps to lower the coffin by failing to recognize and declare that which, with the benefit of hindsight, the debate participants hinted at but failed to openly express.

In view of the antagonistic media, which defeated us in Vietnam, world public opinion and the UN allied with the media and our own diminished patience for long wars, common sense dictated the use of such overwhelming force that the war would be over in a few days.  Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq & Pakistan should have disappeared from the globe in a flash of fire.  Disproportionate, overwhelming, terrifying force, signifying exhausted patience and the will to win, immediately and finally was required.

Victory is defined, in this conflict, as the extinction of Islam in the nations where the plot was conceived, assisted, expedited & celebrated.  So long as the populations of Afghanistan Iran & Pakistan are alive and Islamic, they will provoke, incite, promote and perpetuate terrorism. No other outcome is possible because of Allah’s promise and threat. Go to war; go to Paradise or go to Hell.  For extra credit, injure or enrage the enemy and get more “virgins” & wine. If you doubt this, obtain a clue from Allah’s perfected, immutable word: 8:12, 39,  57, 60 , 65, 9:5,29, 38, 39, 111, 120, 123, 33:26, 27, 59:2, 13, 61:10-12 & Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 from whence issue war & terror.  If they believe, they will terrorize to avoid Hell and gain admission to Allah’s celestial bordello.

Truth is not hate speech. Advocacy of effective national defense is not warmongering neither is it inciting violence.  Terrorism is not the enemy, it is a tactic. Al-Qaeda is not the enemy, it is a branch of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen.  Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen is not the enemy, it is a branch of Islam.  Islam is the enemy. This is a fatal fact which the candidates for the Republican nomination seem to lack the courage to clearly state.

The strategic objective is permanently terminating Islamic terrorism against the U.S.A.  Only exterminating Islam can achieve that objective. While there is Islam, there is war.  If we eliminate Islam in those nations most directly involved, we can temporarily intimidate the remainder so that they will delay the resumption of attacks.  That would buy us some time for the vital task of inducing mass apostasy among the remainder.

So long as Afghanistan & Pakistan are populated by Muslims, they will host terrorist training camps and export terrorism.  Installing democracy does nothing to change that. Partially defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda does nothing to change that.  Victory requires their apostasy from Islam or death. No other option exists.  They are not liberated if they are still Muslims; they remain enslaved to the demon who demands “great slaughter”.

November 22, 2011 Posted by | GWOT, Islam, Political Correctness, Politics | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Defamation of Religions vs Negative Stereotyping: SCIRF Gets It Wrong


Leonard Leo, chairman of the board of SCIRF, testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights  on the International Religious Freedom Report. There is a move underway to defund SCIRF, presumably because its mission conflicts with Obamination’s Islamophilia.

While I sympathize with the SCIRF and believe that it should be preserved, I take issue with Leo’s position on the resolution passed by the HRC last March and currently before the 3rd Committee prior to a General Assembly vote in December.

I do not contest the fact that SCIRF was instrumental in steering the resolutions in a new direction, I take issue with the assertion that the  resolution has been substantially improved and its negative impact on freedom of belief & expression substantially reduced.  Only the rhetoric has improved, the meaning, intent and effect are not improved.

Defamation of Religion in the United Nations — Intolerance Resolution Takes the Place of Defamation Resolution: Over the past decade, resolutions in the UN General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council on the so-called defamation of religions sought to establish a global blasphemy law.  USCIRF’s engagement with the State Department, the U.S. Congress and specific UN member states helped bring about a notable decrease in support for these resolutions over the past three years.  It is an example of the catalytic and coordinating role that the Commission has played.

Since 2008, the resolutions were supported by only a plurality of member states.  Due to this loss of support, the UN Human Rights Council in March 2011 adopted, in place of the divisive “combating defamation of religions” resolution, a consensus resolution on “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”  The resolution properly focuses on protecting individuals from discrimination or violence, instead of protecting religions from criticism.  The new resolution protects the adherents of all religions or beliefs, instead of focusing on one religion.  Unlike the defamation of religions resolution, the new consensus resolution does not call for legal restrictions on peaceful expression, but rather, for positive measures, such as education and awareness-building, to address intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief.

intolerance

I can not and will never tolerate the practice & propagation of a doctrine which mandates that we be killed or subjugated, our property seized and our widows raped and our orphans sold into slavery.  By God, I stand on the rights seized by the founders, which they enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.  I will not accept demands that I tolerate the intolerable.  I will not abide by laws, national or international, demanding silence in the face of approaching evil.

stereotyping

Allah commands Muslims to wage war against us in 8:39 & 9:29. Those imperatives are confirmed by Moe’s Sunnah in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 and other hadith. They are codified in Shari’ah: Reliance of the Traveller O9.8-9.9. Allah promises Muslims admission to his celestial bordello if they wage war and threatens them with eternal damnation if they shirk.  Allah gives extra credit for a better seat in his bordello if they take any step to injure or enrage us.

So most Muslims “don’t do that / don’t believe that”. Oh, don’t they? Islam is not cafeteria Catholicism, as made clear by 2:85: “Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. “.

If Muslims “don’t do that”, then how did the Hindu, Assyrian & Armenian genocides happen?  How do you explain shouts of Takbir in the school at Beslan and the aircraft over New York City?

Which Muslim is a believer who fights in Allah’s cause, killing and being killed [9:111] and which is a hypocrite whose Islam “will not exceed their throats.” [Sahih Bukhari 5.59.638]?

protects individuals

Who is going to go to Egypt and protect the Copts and their homes, businesses & churches?  Will you send the Marines to Kenya & Nigeria to protect Christians there?  Who will protect Christians in Pakistan?  You and whose army, 24/7/365?

You do not protect individuals by passing resolutions, you protect them with “boots on the ground”.  You can only protect indigenous Christian minorities by eliminating the Muslims who murder them with impunity.

The cartoonists did not assault or kill any Muslims; they did not destroy any property. Muslims, stirred up by rabble rousing Imams at Jumah Salat did that. Exactly how do those resolutions protect Muslims?

Islam is not defamed by revelation of the fatal facts linked in previous paragraphs. Muslims are not threatened or stereotyped by revealing those facts. Silencing criticism of Islam would not protect Islam from defamation, neither would it protect Muslims; it would only remove our ability to warn our fellow citizens of approaching danger.

education

The malignant & malicious practice of al-Taqiyya & kitman is not education, it is indoctrination.  Islam is not a religion, neither is it peaceful nor is it great. Islam is intra-species predation.  Education will happen if intelligent and rational people read the Qur’an, hadith & Shari’ah.  What currently happens in our educational & religious institutions is indoctrination.

concrete details

I have prepared two tables comparing the defamation & stereotyping memes. The tables are complemented by relevant quotes from the Secretaries General of the OIC and UN, followed by evidence to further clarify the issue. Bold, blue, underlined text is hyperlinked to source documents.

defamation stereotyping
Muhammad had coitus with a nine year old girl. Muhammad had coitus with a nine year old girl.
God would never select an unrepentant sinner as his final prophet. Muslims tend toward pedophilia because Muhammad is their role model.

Regardless of which standard of conduct is adopted, stating the fact revealed by Aisha, that she was nine years old when Moe consummated their marriage, will be criminalized and condemned.

defamation stereotyping no religion should be equated with terrorism
I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast
terror

You are more awful as a fear


victorious with terror

I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast
terror

You are more awful as a fear


victorious with terro

I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast
terror

You are more awful as a fear


victorious with terro

Islamic doctrines incite terrorism. Muslims are terrorists because they emulate Moe. Islam =
terrorism.

No  matter how you slice it; whichever protocol  they follow, truthful statements about Islam must be outlawed and condemned.  Defamation || negative stereotyping is a distinction without a difference.

concrete examples

In this quote from a speech to the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu implies that  Geert Wilders’ Fitna and the Danish Cartoons incite religious hatred & violence.

It is clearly established that international law and in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966 forbids any incitement to religious hatred. Article 20 of this Covenant stipulates that “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” Despite this clear stipulation, the Attorney General of Denmark failed to see in the infamous Danish Cartoons issues on Prophet Mohamed, any incitement to hatred on bases of religion or belief. The same authority in the Netherlands did the same thing in the case of the film Fitna, produced by a Member of Dutch Parliament. Such negative or indifferent attitudes adopted by officials in certain Western countries which seem to condone acts of an Islamophobic nature, can only lead to legitimizing Islamophobia and enhancing discrimination against Muslims and exposing their well-being and safety to danger. [Speech 0f His Excellency Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General 0f the Organisation 0f the Islamic conference, at Columbia University 21/09/2008]

Ban Ki-moon also condemned Fitna.

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.”

 

incitement ?

Fitna

Fitna juxtaposes violent Qur’an verses and hadith with the rabid hate speech & incitement of several Imams and the resulting terrorism & riots. Fitna does not incite, it exposes incitement.

Motoons

The Motoons depict Moe as a terrorist.  They are humorous; they do not exhort or incite Kuffar to assault Muslims. Moe died before the invention of gun powder, but he was a terrorist by his own admission, having declared that he was “made victorious with terror“. He deliberately built a reputation for egregious barbarian rapine so as to terrify his intended victims, rendering them disorganized and effectively defenseless.

Quran burning

Pastor Terry Jones planned to hold a Qur’an burning 09/11/10. He chickened out, but in March of ’11, he held a four hour mock trial of the Qur’an with Arabic speaking experts on both sides of the debate and, having found the Qur’an guilty of inciting violence, burned it.

Muslims in Pakistan, on exiting from Jumah Salat, rioted, resulting in several deaths and considerable property damage. Pastor Jones did not incite violence, the Pakistani Imams incited violence in their rabid rants at Friday prayer services.

Ihsanoglu’s jaundiced view

 

The publication of offensive cartoons of the Prophet six years ago that sparked outrage across the Muslim world, the publicity around the film Fitna and the more recent Qur’an burnings represent incidents of incitement to hatred that fuel an atmosphere of dangerous mutual suspicion. Freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility. At the same time, violent reactions to provocations are also irresponsible and uncivilised and we condemn them unequivocally.[http://71.18.253.18/en/topic_details.asp?tID=239]

We have to be sure about what constitutes criticism but not incitement to hatred. For example, when somebody calls for burning of our holy book Qur`an, can it be considered as mere criticism? [http://71.18.253.18/en/topic_details.asp?tID=39]

The most recent and unfortunate in the series of such events was the announcement
pertaining to Bum a Koran Day. It was highly provocative towards the religious sentiments
of Muslims everywhere in the world and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
[Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu’s speech to the HRC Session 15.]

 

legal foundation

Moe ordered the murder of his critics; an example to be emulated.

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka‘b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka’b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka’b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad b. Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu ‘Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except ‘Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na’ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.

Shari’ah

Reliance of the Traveller, O11.10  lists five acts which break the treaty of protection exposing a Dhimmi to execution. This is the fifth item in that list: “or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.”  What is impermissible to mention? O8.7 contains a list of 20 items including: “to revile Allah or His messenger “, “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 “, “to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat”,  “to deny any verse of the Koran “, and “to revile the religion of Islam”.

In reality, the OIC seeks, through the UN, to impose Islamic blasphemy law on us, denying our right to warn our fellow citizens of the existential threat Islam poses to our lives, liberties & prosperity.   We were not stupid enough to outlaw criticism of Communism during the cold war, why should we outlaw criticism of Islam?

November 19, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Defamation Meme: Shifted and Substituted, Not Removed!


Article 19 tells us that states should support the draft resolution against belief based discrimination. I quote one of their arguments.

ARTICLE 19 welcomes the draft resolution’s complete omission of the ambiguous “defamation of religions” – a term incompatible with international human rights standards on the right to freedom of expression – and the focus on combating discrimination against persons. The draft is in line with General Comment No 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee of July 2011 that states that “prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant”.

Note the citation of General Comment No. 34; the next paragraph contains a significant contradiction.

However, ARTICLE 19 suggests that the title and subject of the draft resolution should be shortened by omitting the vague terms of “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization”. The resolution should simply concern “combating discrimination, violence and incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief”.  Notwithstanding this weakness, states should support the draft resolution

After stating that the draft resolution omits the “defamation of religions” meme, they complain of the inclusion of “negative stereotyping”.   What significant difference is there between the two expressions?

Whereas Article 19 is half way rational, Human Rights First steps in the steaming pile with their headline: “U.N. Third Committee Makes Decisive Break from “Defamation of Religion” “.

“If this text is adopted by the full General Assembly, it would mark a decisive break from the polarizing focus in the past on defamation of religions.” said Human Rights First’s Tad Stahnke. “Governments should now focus on concrete measures to fight religiously-motivated violence, discrimination, and other forms of intolerance, while recognizing the importance of freedom of expression.”

A “decisive break”?  Sorry, suckers. Evidently you did not read the next draft resolution in sequence.  The NGOs want us to believe that the OIC and UN have abandoned the “defamation of Islam” meme which was introduced in 1999 through the Human Rights Commission.

At the opening of the HRC session in March of ’11, Pakistan’s Ambassador made it clear that the defamation meme has not been abandoned. The HRC ratified that fact by adopting the resolution without a vote.

I wish to state categorically that this
resolution does not replace earlier resolutions on combating
defamation.  which were adopted by the Human Rights Council  and
remain valid.  This resolution L.38  is an attempt on the
part of the oic to build consensus on an issue of vital importance
not only to Muslims but to people of all religions

The new resolutions merely rope in votes by shifting an objectionable paragraph out of the draft while including it by reference to past resolutions.  Flip the calendar back one year.

A/C.3/65/L.46 Combating defamation of religions

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;

[…]

Stressing that 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,

Stressing also the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and
incitement to religious hatred in general,
[…]
Noting with concern that 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,

Exactly how is Islam defamed?  The obvious answer is found in ¶7 on page 4 of the resolution.

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

While that concept is missing from A/C.3/66/L.47,  it  is  included in  A/C.3/66/L.48 titled “Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief”. It is in ¶10 on page 3, slightly disguised.

Also emphasizes 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;

Is Islam wrongly associated with terrorism, or do the two go together hand in glove?  Perhaps you should decide after reading the most relevant ayat & ahadith. Or maybe there is one more piece of evidence you should consider in your deliberations.

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.”

8:57. If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.

8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

9:120.  It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh’s Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh’s Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allâh wastes not the reward of the Muhsinûn.9:120.  It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh’s Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh’s Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allâh wastes not the reward of the Muhsinûn.

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.

33:27. 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.

59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh’s (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).

59:13. Verily ye [are] stronger [than they], by reason of the terror [cast] into their breasts from God. This, because they [are] not people of prudence.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.
2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.

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).

Of course those are old, musty books with no modern relevance, right?  But during the regime of Zia ul-Haq  in Pakistan, Brigadier S.K. Malik wrote a strategy manual for Pakistan’s Army. The Qur’anic Concept of War is modern, relevant and based on Islam’s canon. Pay close attention. The source is page 59 of the text, page 50 of the pdf.

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself.  Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heat is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved.  It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge.  Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him. [Emphasis original.]

Malik’s book confirmed what we already knew: terrorism is an intrinsic tactic of Islam. The association is well founded, not false; exposing it is not defamatory because it is true.

In the weeks before the General Assembly’s adoption of these resolutions, NGOs, politicians and experts will chortle with glee about the “great victory for free speech”  now that the  “defamation of  religions” concept is eliminated.  But we have no victory, we are suffering defeat, our liberty is being eroded  and we are being told to celebrate and embrace it.

Instead of being eliminated, the defamation meme, while relocated to another resolution, remains in the guise of  “negative stereotyping”.

November 17, 2011 Posted by | Islam, United Nations | , | 3 Comments

UN Censorship: Outlawing Criticism of Islam


On October 27, ’11, the United Arab Emirates, acting on behalf of the OIC, submitted a draft resolution entitled “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief”.

With the exception of one additional conjunction and preposition, the title is identical to that of   A/HRC/RES/16/18 passed this spring. A/C.3/66/L.47, currently in the 3rd Committee,  is two pages longer and has one more enumerated paragraph.
There are major problems in the list of affirmations.

Reaffirming also the obligation of States to prohibit discrimination on the basis
of religion or belief and to implement measures to guarantee the equal and effective
protection of the law,

The OIC  is not acting in good faith; they can not simultaneously base their domestic legislation on Shari’ah and reaffirm the obligation to guarantee equal protection of the law because Shari’ah:

  • Subjects indigenous Jews & Christians to a punitive, humiliating tax called jizya.  Reliance of the Traveller, Book O11.4
  • Disqualifies Jews & Christians from testifying against Muslims. O24.2(c)
  • Prohibits construction & maintenance of churches.  O11.5-7
  • Prohibits public manifestation of non-Muslim religions. O11.5-6
  • Sets the indemnity for wrongful death of a non-Muslim as a fraction that paid for a Muslim.  O4.2
  • Prohibits a divorced non-Muslim woman from obtaining child custody if her children are Muslims because their father was. M13.2(c).
Reaffirming further that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated,

The right to life is primary, without it, all other rights are null and void.  Islam implicitly denies the right to life: “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” Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. Islamic law explicitly permits killing non-Muslim men taken captive. O9.14

On page 218 of al-Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1, we find the clearest statement of the fatal fact of Islam.   “Secondly, capitation-tax is a substitute for destruction in respect to the infidels,”.

My First Amendment right of free speech which prohibits the government from criminalizing the truthful declarations made above, does not in any way or to any extent detract from a Muslims ‘right’ to ‘practice his religion’.  Free speech does not prevent or impair Iman, Salat, Saum, Hajj or Zakat.  It simply permits uttering & publishing truthful statements about an institution inimical to our lives & liberties.

The problem is that the practice of Islam entails jihad, which is defined as “to war against non-Muslims” O9.0.  “Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, ” 9:123. Islam is all or nothing, inseverable “Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment.” 2:85.  Jihad is a communal obligation binding on all eligible adult male Muslims and must be performed in every year. O9.1

Islam can not be practiced in obedience to Allah and in emulation of Moe without voiding the human rights of kuffar.  It is therefore impossible that a right to practice Islam can exist.   Stating this fatal fact is not defamatory neither is it negative stereotyping nor is it inciting violence. It is a simple statement of fact, which, if acknowledged by the legislative and executive branches of our government, must result in removal of the umbrella of First Amendment protection from Islam.

Reaffirming 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 and combating religious intolerance,

I hope that I am not the only one who perceives the irony in that sentence.  The authors intend that sentence to mean what it says in the Orwellian sense, they do not intend it to have the meaning the words denote.  To the authors of the resolution, “combating religious intolerance” means  combating resistance to Islam.

If religious intolerance is to be combated then it is necessary that Islam be combated, because Islam is  so extremely intolerant that it mandates perpetual war to establish a global monopoly for itself in 8:39.  The Qur’an refers to Jews & Christians as the “worst of living creatures” in 98:6, and curses us in 9:30.    Since the Qur’an is perfected 5:3 & immutable 10:64, Islam can not be reformed, it must be eliminated.

Underlining the importance of education in the promotion of tolerance, which involves the acceptance by the public of and its respect for religious and cultural diversity, including with regard to religious expression, and underlining also the fact that education, in particular at school, should contribute in a meaningful way to promoting tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief,

Look below the surface of that run on sentence, to the embedded false premise: promotion of tolerance of Islam.  Text books used in schools throughout Arabia quote 3:85 and the infamous genocide hadith Sahih Bukhari 4.53.177. They demand that we convert our schools into Islamic indoctrination centers.

1. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups, in particular when condoned by Governments;

To discover the real meaning of that run on sentence, read this annual Islamophobia report published by the OIC: 4th OIC observatory report on Islamophobia (May 2010 to April 2011) .  See what they complain about most in their monthly reports. Note the prominent mention of anti-Islamic political parties in Europe.

2. Expresses concern that the number of incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of religion or belief, continues to rise around the world, condemns, in this context, any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, as set forth in the present resolution and consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents;

“Advocacy of religious hatred..incitement to… violence” describes the Qur’an, as anyone knows who has read Surahs Al Fatiha, Al-Ma’idah , Al-Anfal and At-Taubah.    Does anyone believe that Islam seeks to enforce Article 4 of ICERD against itself?

Adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief;

Is the prima facie meaning of that sentence valid?  Only if the organ of cognition is the anus, not the brain!  U.N. documents favor the term “inter alia”, meaning between the words. In this case, it is necessary to refer to previous statements. Ban Ki-moon’s statement about the short documentary by Geert Wilders speaks volumes.

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 Ban, Fitna is “hate speech” and  “incitement to violence”.  The hate speech displayed in Fitna has three sources: the Qur’an, hadith & raving Imams. The violence displayed in Fitna is Islamic violence.  At no point does Wilders express hatred or incite violence in his documentary.

On March 1 of ’11, Ekmeleddin Ishanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC, addressed the HRC.  I will add emphasis to make a few significant phrases stand out.

OIC has a principled position against defamation of any
religion, dehumanization of the followers or denigration of
symbols sacred to all religions. The developments
including the ban of construction of minarets, the attempts
towards burning of Quran and the use of Islamophobia as
an instrument of electoral politics are ominous. There is an
urgent need to initiate and sustain what I would like to term
as ‘preventive cultural diplomacy’. We need to move
beyond event based calls for action to create spaces for
structured engagement. The Human Rights framework
provides with a concrete basis for this engagement. We
believe that the workshops on incitement to hatred under
the Durban mandate constitute and important avenue for a
synthesis aimed at bridging the divergence of views. I
reiterate my call, during the 15th Session of the Council,
for establishing an Observatory at the Office of the High
Commissioner to monitor acts of defamation of all religions
or incitement to hatred or violence on religious grounds as
a first step towards concerted action at the international
level. Let me also recall that I had outlined eight areas of
action for consideration by states, at both the national and
international level, with a view to dealing with defamation
issue. I am pleased to note that the proposal has found some
resonance.

The OIC has shown flexibility in negotiations with our
partners over the past couple of years and we would now
expect some reciprocity. The perception that supporting
the resolution would throttle one’s right to freedom
expression is only a myth. Freedom of expression will
always be upheld but it cannot be allowed to be a tool to
use for inciting fear and hate.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I felt
encouraged by some positive and constructive proposals in
finding a way forward on the text of the Resolution. If there
is a genuine political will on the part of all to address the
issue of incitement of hatred against religions in earnest, I
am confident that we can achieve a consensus.

Another speech to the HRC, by Pakistan’s Ambassador, reveals even more, with greater clarity. I reproduce it here, from an earlier blog post in which I took it on point by point.

Pakistan (on behalf of
the OIC)
Mr. Zamir Akram

03/24/11

Thank you Mr. President. On behalf of the OIC countries, I have the
honor to introduce the draft resolution entitled “combating
intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of and
discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons
based on religion or belief contained in document L.38.

Mr. President: this resolution addresses a number of
issues over which the OIC has been expressing concern over the years.
having said  that, I wish to state categorically that this
resolution does not replace earlier resolutions on combating
defamation.  which were adopted by the Human Rights Council  and
remain valid.  This resolution L.38  is an attempt on the
part of the oic to build consensus on an issue of vital importance
not only to Muslims but to people of all religions  and beliefs by
identifying  ways and means to deal with the growing problems of
religious incitement and discrimination and incitement to hatred and violence based on
religion or belief.

At the heart of this resolution are a series of practical steps
which need to be taken by states in order to address
this problem. This resolution addresses the core issues in a manner
that is acceptable to all including in  a legal sense, thus
seeking to bring all stake holders on board.  The OIC has gone
the extra mile to maintain a spirit of constructive engagement with all
partners during this process of consultation.

Our primary objective is to ensure that this text,
which will hopefully be adopted by consensus, will bind us all to the
commitments contained therein and oblige us all to ensure compliance
with its decisions.

Mr. President: Muslims around the world continue to be confronted
with ever increasing instances of intolerance, negative stereotyping,
stigmatization, discrimination  and violence on the basis of their religion; Islam.
Objective academic studies reveal that following the end of the cold war, the
pernicious doctrine of a clash of civilizations signaled the start of a narrative that required
the construction of a new enemy  to replace the global threat of
Communism with the so-called menace of Islam.

The reprehensible acts of terrorism on September 11,
2001 provided the trigger to unleash the clash of civilizations to the
forefront of global politics.  In the general Western view, no
distinction was made between a handful of extremists and terrorists  and
the overwhelming majority of peaceful and law abiding Muslims
living around the world. To make matters worse, against the backdrop of
the recent global economic crisis, these fears of Islam and Muslims are
now being manipulated by irresponsible and bigoted Western politicians
to gain political mileage  in their countries, unfortunately, with
remarkable success.

Terms such as Islamofascists have become common.
Even the Qur’an has not been spared;  it has been compared to Hitler’s
Mein Kampf. More recently, it was tried for religious crimes and
burnt.  Minarets at mosques deliberately depicted on posters
as missiles, have been banned. There have even been restrictions on
shops selling halal food, while no such restrictions exist on kosher
food outlets which are similar.

There is also increasing discrimination against Muslims in various
parts of the world.  They are being subjected to racial profiling
which confronts them with intractable problems at every border where
they are checked and re-checked.  Their businesses are repeatedly
scrutinized and their places of worship disallowed or desecrated.
They are made to feel unwelcome in societies where they live as
minorities.

One prominent politician has recently organized
hearings that seek to put on trial the entire Muslim community and are
obviously designed to stoke fears against Muslims in that
country.

Mr. President, the efforts by the oic to defend
our religion, our holy book and our prophet  and our people have
often been misrepresented as being contrary to international human
rights principles and laws, and in particular, rejected as undermining
the freedom of expression or opinion. The reality is different.
It is therefore appropriate in such a position, for us to try and
explain our faith and our principles. I hope, Mr. President, you will
give me a bit of extra time to do so.

Mr.  President: the Qur’an lays great emphasis on the
need for religious tolerance  as well as freedom of thought and
opinion.  In chapter 2, verse 256, the Qur’an states there is no
compulsion in religion.  In chapter 18, verse 29, the Qur’an
maintains that truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe
and him who please disbelieve.  As regards freedom of
thought and opinion in Islam, the Qur’an states, in chapter 16, in verse 125 invite
all to the way of your creator with wisdom and arguments that are the
best and most gracious.  The Qur’an and the traditions of the holy
prophet also lay emphasis on the treatment of non-Muslims.
According to Prophet Muhammad, (PBUH), he who hurts a non-Muslim
citizen of a Muslim state I am his adversary and I shall be his
adversary on the day of  judgment.

Mr. President: it is also instructive for us to know
that we Muslims are not only bound by temporal laws to respect human
rights but by divine enjunctions contained in the Qur’an.  The
basic human rights as ordained in the Qur’an  include the
rights to life,  individual freedom, justice, equality, privacy, association
and basic necessities of life or minimum standard of living. These
obligations also include respect for women,  equality among human
beings, freedom of expression, protection from arbitrary imprisonment
and the right to oppose tyranny and injustice.  the last sermon of
the prophet (PBUH) is, in itself, a comprehensive charter of human
rights.  Islam has even established a complete code for the right
of combatants in war. Measures for the protection of all combatants as
well as homes and property belonging to them.

Mr. President: I have dwelt at length on these characteristics of Islam
because I want to underscore the common principles that underlie our
faith and the requirements of international law including international
human rights and humanitarian law.  Indeed, given the tremendous
contributions by Islam in various fields of human activity over
the  years, these principles have contributed to the evolution of
the very principles that we are trying to uphold today.

Mr. President, we sincerely believe that that irrespective of our
different cultural backgrounds and traditions, there is a shared
interest for all of us to show respect for each other’s religions and
beliefs  as well as to prevent any advocacy of religious hatred and
intolerance, discrimination and incitement  on the basis of religion or
belief.

The resolution under consideration seeks to achieve
these laudable objectives through a range of actions by states
including administrative steps, measures to criminalize imminent
violence, training and awareness programs, promotion of dialogue and
understanding at all levels.   The resolution also calls for
a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace
and in this context it decides to convene a panel discussion in the
Human Rights Council.  We hope that this resolution will be
adopted by consensus.  Before concluding, Mr. President, I would
like to place on record my appreciation for the support and cooperation
of all my colleagues in the oic  and in particular, members of
the core group of ambassadors that we set up to work out this
resolution.  I have truly benefited from the wisdom and advice and
without their support this text would not have been possible.  I
would also like to thank the Secretary General of the oic whose
support and guidance made this resolution possible.  In addition I
would like to express my appreciation — my sincere appreciation to all
our partners in the various groups, especially the ambassadors of the
U.S. and the U.K. on behalf of the European Union for their cooperative
and constructive approach.  Let me also thank the ambassadors from
the African group, grulac and Croatia for their cooperation and
engagement in this effort. I am glad that this oic initiative has
met with broad cross regional support which will send out a strong
message of unity from this council. Finally I would  like to thank
the experts from Pakistan, the U.S., the U.K. and other countries for
their tireless efforts to work out the text of this resolution. I thank
you Mr. president.

Burning a Qur’an after a mock trial is not hate speech, neither is it incitement to violence.  Congressional hearings on “radicalization” are not hate speech, neither are they incitement to violence.

This blog post is not hate speech, neither is it incitement to violence. It is a warning to American citizens about a clear, proximate and persistent threat to our right of free speech.  The OIC, acting through the United Nations, seeks to impose its blasphemy law on the entire human race.  Reliance of the Traveller, Book O8.7 lists 20 “acts that entail” Apostasy.  Any and all criticism and questioning of Allah, Moe & Islam is prohibited under penalty of death.

Previous resolutions expressly condemned association of Islam with “terrorism and human rights violations”. But Allah said that he would and did cast terror and Moe said that he was “made victorious with terror“.   The expressions have changed, the agenda has not. We have won no victory, we have misinterpreted a defeat.

Please visit http://wwwcongress.org/  and send a message to Obamination, your Representative & Senator demanding a NO! vote on this vile resolution.

Related blog posts:

November 16, 2011 Posted by | Islam, United Nations | , , , , , | 3 Comments

Dispelling the Sharia Threat Myth


http://apps.americanbar.org/cle/programs/t11dst1.html

Dispelling the Sharia Threat Myth:

Implications of Banning Courts from Referencing Religious, Foreign, or International Law

Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Format: Live Webinar and Teleconference
Duration: 90 minutes

 

In the last year nearly 50 bills and state constitutional amendments intending to ban state courts from considering international, foreign, or religious law were introduced in more than 20 states.   Such provisions—commonly referred to as “Sharia law bans” or “anti-Sharia law legislation”—have already passed in Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Louisiana.

Once adopted these bans have the potential to obstruct state courts from performing essential functions including enforcement of commercial contracts, intra-country adoptions, foreign marriages, Native American rights, foreign, judgments, and the outcome of voluntary faith-based dispute resolution forums as well as efforts to thwart child abduction. The provisions also have serious implications for individual rights under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Our panel will discuss the origin of these bans, their potential impact on how state courts function, and efforts to combat the provisions in legislatures and the courts.

Do we really want Islamic commercial law to be enforced in our courts? To be Shari’ah compliant, Zatat of 2.5% is required on financial transactions. 12.5% of Zakat must be paid to those “fighting in Allah’s cause”.  Zakat paid on Shari’ah compliant investments, insurance, annuities & mortgages will be used to finance terrorism. Wasn’t that what the Holy Land foundation trial was about? Reliance of the Traveller, Book H codifies the law of Zakat.

h8.17 The seventh category is those fighting for
Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military
operations for whom no salary has been allotted in
the army roster (0: but who are volunteers for
jihad without remuneration). They are given
enough to suffice them for the operation, even if
affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and
expenses (0: for the duration of the journey,
round trip, and the time they spend there, even if
prolonged. Though nothing has been mentioned
here of the expense involved in supporting such
people’s families during this period, it seems clear
that they should also be given it).

Several of the cases described in http://www.shariahinamericancourts.com involve divorce and child custody.  Islamic laws of marriage & divorce are codified in books M & N of Reliance of the Traveller Do you really want those laws enforced in our courts?

Shari’ah empowers the father of a pre-pubescent virgin girl to compel her to marry the man of his choice.  How does that square with our age of consent laws?  Should a girl be allowed to choose her own mate, and wait until she is sufficiently mature to make the decision?

m3.13 Guardians are of two types, those who
may compel their female charges to marry someone,
and those who may not.
(1) The only guardians who may compel
their charge to marry are a virgin bride’s father or
father’s father, compel meaning to marry her to a
suitable match (def: m4) without her consent.

Shari’ah allows a Muslim to divorce his wife by repeating “I divorce you.” three times, it is quick and simple.

n3.1 The words that effect a divorce may be
plain or allusive. Plain words effect the divorce
whether one intends divorce by them or not, while
allusive words do not effect it unless one intends
divorce by them.
n3.2 Using plain words to effect a divorce
means expressly pronouncing the word divorce
(0: or words derived from it). When the husband
says, HI divorce you,” or “You are divorced,” the
wife is divorced whether he has made the intention
or not.
(A: Here and in the rulings below, expressions
such as “The wife is divorced,” or “The
divorce is effected,” mean just one of the three
times (def: n9.0(N:» necessary to finalize it,
unless the husband thereby intends a two- or
threefold divorce (dis: n3.5) or repeats the words
three times.)

The Shari’ah of support could be an important consideration in divorce cases.

m 11.1 0 As for a woman in her postmarital waiting
period (def: n9), she is entitled to housing during
it no matter if it is because of her husband’s death,
a divorce in which the husband may take her back,
or a threefold, finalized divorce. As for her support
(A: in terms of food) and clothing:
(1) it is not obligatory to provide her with
it during the waiting period after (N: a threefold
divorce, a release for payment (def: nS), or) her
husband’s death;
(2) it must be provided in the waiting period
of a (A: not yet threefold) divorce in which her
husband may take her back;
(3) and if a woman in the waiting period of a
threefold divorce is pregnant, she is given support
each day (A: until the child is born, after which
she is entitled to support and wages for taking care
of it), but if not pregnant, she is not entitled to
support.

In matters of child custody, which parent is better qualified to have custody?  Islamic law might not meet your expectations.  Custody is a function of age and religion.

m13.5 When a child reaches the age of discrimination
(0: which generally occurs around seven or
eight years of age) he is given a choice as to which
of his parents he wants to stay with (0: since the
Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)
gave a young boy the choice between his father
and his mother. The child is only given such a
choice when the necessary conditions for child
custody (def: m13.2) exist in both parents. If one
of them lacks a single condition, then the child is
not given a choice, because someone lacking one
of the conditions is as though nonexistent).
If the child chooses one of the parents, he is
given to the care of that one, though if a son
chooses his mother, he is left with his father during
the day so the father can teach him and train him.

What if the father is Muslim and the Mother is Christian?

m13.2 The necessary conditions for a person to
have custody of a child are:
(a) uprightness (def: 024.4) (0: a corrupt
person may not be a guardian, because child care
is a position of authority, and the corrupt are
unqualified for it. Mawardi and Ruyani hold that
outward uprightness (def: m3.3(f) is sufficient
unless there is open wrongdoing. If the corruptness
of a child’s mother consists of her not performing
the prayer (sal at) , she has no right to
custody of the child, who might grow up to be like
her, ending up in the same vile condition of not
praying, for keeping another’s company has its
effects);
(b) sanity (0: since a mother uninterruptedly
insane has no right to custody, though if her
insanity is slight. such as a single day per year. her
right to custody is not vitiated by it);
(c) and if the child is Muslim, it is a necessary
condition that the person with custody be a Muslim
(0: because it is a position of authority, and a
non-Muslim has no right to authority and hence
no right to raise a Muslim. If a non-Muslim were
given charge of the custody and upbringing of the
child, the child might acquire the character traits
of unbelief (kufr».

m13.4 A woman has no right to custody (A: of
her child from a previous marriage) when she
remarries (0: because married life will occupy her
with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent
her from tending the child. It makes no difference
in such cases if the (A: new) husband
agrees or not (N: since the child’s custody in such
a case automatically devolves to the next most
eligible on the list (dis: m13.I)), unless the person
she marries is someone (A: on the list) who is
entitled to the child’s c!Jstody anyway (0: as
opposed to someone unrelated to the child, since
such a person, even if willing, does not deserve
custody because he lacks the tenderness for the
child that a relative would have).

The offspring of a Muslim father must be raised as Muslims. A Christian mother can not obtain custody. If she remarries, she loses custody.  Do you want that Islamic law enforced in our courts?

There are many other details that make Shari’ah incompatible with American law. You can read about them in Reliance of The Traveller. Consider the laws of eligibility to give testimony in court.  You can obtain the book from Amazon.com for about $30; it is 1251 pages long including the index. .

Examine the House Resolution before the Congress. It simply excludes foreign law unless it is explicitly required by the Constitution or federal legislation.

H.R. 973: To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent the misuse of foreign law in Federal courts,…112th Congress: 2011-2012

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-973

SECTION 1. USE OF FOREIGN LAW IN FEDERAL COURTS.
Part VI of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘CHAPTER 183–USE OF FOREIGN LAW IN FEDERAL COURTS
‘Sec. 4201. Limitation on use of foreign law in Federal courts
‘In any court created by or under article III of the Constitution of the United States, no justice, judge, or other judicial official shall decide any issue in a case before that court in whole or in part on the authority of foreign law, except to the extent the Constitution or an Act of Congress requires the consideration of that foreign law.’.

Michigan House Bill 4769 would ban enforcement of foreign law which abrogates constitutional rights.  Take a close look at its operative provisions.

Sec. 2. A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other
4  adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce
5  a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the
6  constitution of this state or of the United States.
7  Sec. 3. (1) If any contractual provision or agreement provides
8  for the choice of a foreign law to govern its interpretation or the
9  resolution of any dispute between the parties and if the
10  enforcement or interpretation of the contractual provision or
11  agreement would result in a violation of a right guaranteed by the
12  constitution of this state or of the United States, the contractual
13  provision or agreement shall be applied as modified or amended to
14  the extent necessary to preserve the constitutional rights of the
15  parties.
16  (2) If any contractual provision or agreement provides for the
17  choice of venue or forum outside of the states or territories of
18  the United States, and if the enforcement or interpretation of the
19  contractual provision or agreement applying that choice of venue or
20  forum provision would result in a violation of any right guaranteed
21  by the constitution of this state or of the United States, that
22  contractual provision or agreement shall be interpreted or
23  construed to preserve the constitutional rights of the person
24  against whom enforcement is sought. Similarly, if a natural person
25  subject to personal jurisdiction in this state seeks to maintain
26  litigation, arbitration, agency, or similarly binding proceedings
27  in this state, and if a court of this state finds that granting a
claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would
2  likely lead to a violation of the constitutional rights of the
3  nonclaimant in the foreign forum with respect to the matter in
4  dispute, the claim shall be denied.
5  (3) Any contractual provision or agreement incapable of being
6  modified or amended to preserve the constitutional rights of the
7  parties pursuant to the provisions of this section is null and
8  void.
9  (4) If a corporation, partnership, limited liability company,
10  business association, or other legal entity contracts to subject
11  itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction outside of any state or
12  territory of the United States, this act does not apply to that
13  contract.
14  Sec. 4. This act applies only to actual or foreseeable
15  violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the
16  application of the foreign law.

Exactly how does prohibiting the enforcement of foreign law which would violate the Constitutional rights of one party impair a Muslim’s right to practice Islam?  Please explain in a comment or document your answer in a blog post and post the url in a comment.  Does the proposed legislation stop him from Iman, Salat, Saum, Hajj or Zakat?   What real harm is done to the Muslim if the legislation deprives him of a frivolous defense against charges of bigamy, marital rape or domestic violence?

Must we allow Khalid Sheikh Mohammed & conspirators to assert a defense based on religious obligation and let him get off Scott free because “Allah made me do it.”?

Does anyone comprehend the fact that Muslims present a real, present & persistent danger to our personal and national security precisely because of Shari’ah, which codifies Allah’s imperative, threat & promise?  Allah said “fight them“;  Shari’ah  says that  if jihad is neglected when possible to perform,  all who knew of it are in sin.  Shari’ah says that “The  caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians”…

Shari’ah’s provisions for perpetual conquest may not be tried in our courts, but its child custody provisions have already made an appearance there.  Despite 50 trial and appelate cases in the last 30 years, the ABA assures us that Shari’ah poses no threat.

The Shari’ah threat can not be exorcised by the magic of legal incantations, it can only be exorcised by expelling Islam and its advocates from our shores.  At present, legislation to exclude Shari’ah from court decisions is the only proximate solution to an insoluble problem.

November 12, 2011 Posted by | Islam | , , , , | Leave a comment

Candidate Baiting


I missed the debate in Oakland because of a previous commitment. Tonight I watched it on You Tube. While Perry’s blank out is receiving most of the attention, I noticed that Santorum appears to have made a great deal of improvement compared to his performance at previous debates. I doubt that his improved presentation will move him up in the ranks, but it might set him up for the second slot on the ticket.

Gingrich seemed to be getting the audience’s attention and agreement. Too bad he has flip-flopped and has heavy baggage. He may be gaining on the second slot like Santorum.

Bachmann has the knowledge, policy and ability to articulate them, but has fallen out of the limelight; not getting the face time she deserves.  In my jaundiced view, Romney, Perry & Huntsman have one common element: shifty eyes.  To me, they appear untrustworthy.

Cain seems to cling too tightly to his 999 plan, fearing to stray far from it. But the audience appreciated his handling of the venomous questions about the harassment accusations.  It is likely that the controversy will backfire on his detractors by increasing his media attention, giving Cain more air time to explain his plan and policy positions.

Ron Paul appeared to be having a lucid moment, articulating solid economic theory; he does best when avoiding national security & foreign policy.

The thing that struck me about this debate was the apparent antagonism of the questioners. The woman in the center seemed to be shooting daggers with her eyes.  The baldy with the grey goatee appeared at one point to be suffering from a fire ant infestation in his hemorrhoids.

The tight time format with multiple candidates is not suited to major issues such as economic policy. Thirty seconds is not enough to outline an alternative to Obama Don’t Care.

I have a better idea, inspired by Jamie Glazov’s Front Page Magazine symposiums: a series of  single issue forensic debates carried out by email.  The emails would be arranged on a web page similar to Glazov’s symposiums. That would allow more deliberate and extended statements & responses and facilitate viewing by readers limited to low bandwidth dial up connections.

There is more than one way to solve the problem; the debates could be done with You Tube videos.  A Facebook group would be another alternative that could facilitate mass audience participation. It may be too late for the primary campaign, but creative minds could cook something up in time for the general election campaign next year.

November 11, 2011 Posted by | Debates, Politics | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Fiqh Council Declares No Conflict Between Islam and Constitution


The Fiqh Council of North America issued a resolution declaring that Shari’ah and the Constitution are not in conflict. Are they practicing al-Taqiyya or telling the truth?  Examine the details to find out.

http://www.fiqhcouncil.org/node/67
Resolution On Being Faithful Muslims and Loyal Americans

Resolution of the Fiqh Council of North America
Adopted in its General Body Meeting held in Virginia on September 24-25, 2011
On Being Faithful Muslims and Loyal Americans

Like other faith communities in the US and elsewhere, we see no inherent conflict between the normative values of Islam and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Contrary to erroneous perceptions and Islamophobic propaganda of political extremists from various backgrounds, the true and authentic teachings of Islam promote the sanctity of human life, dignity of all humans, and respect of human, civil and political rights. Islamic teachings uphold religious freedom and adherence to the same universal moral values which are accepted by the majority of people of all backgrounds and upon which the US Constitution was established and according to which the Bill of Rights was enunciated.

The Qur’an speaks explicitly about the imperative of just and peaceful co-existence, and the rights of legitimate self-defense against aggression and oppression that pose threats to freedom and security, provided that, a strict code of behavior is adhered to, including the protection of innocent non-combatants.

The foregoing values and teachings can be amply documented from the two primary sources of Islamic jurisprudence – the Qur’an and authentic Hadith. These values are rooted, not in political correctness or pretense, but on the universally accepted supreme objectives of Islamic Shari’ah, which is to protect religious liberty, life, reason, family and property of all. The Shari’ah, contrary to misrepresentations, is a comprehensive and broad guidance for all aspects of a Muslim’s life – spiritual, moral, social and legal. Secular legal systems in Western democracies generally share the same supreme objectives, and are generally compatible with Islamic Shari’ah.

Likewise, the core modern democratic systems are compatible with the Islamic principles of Shura – mutual consultation and co-determination of all social affairs at all levels and in all spheres, family, community, society, state and globally.
As a body of Islamic scholars, we the members of FCNA believe that it is false and misleading to suggest that there is a contradiction between being faithful Muslims committed to God (Allah) and being loyal American citizens. Islamic teachings require respect of the laws of the land where Muslims live as minorities, including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience to God. We do not see any such conflict with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. The primacy of obedience to God is a commonly held position of many practicing Jews and Christians as well.

We believe further that as citizens of a free and democratic society, we have the same obligations and rights of all US citizens. We believe that right of dissent can only be exercised in a peaceful and lawful manner to advance the short and long term interests of our country.

The Fiqh Council of North America calls on all Muslim Americans and American citizens at large to engage in objective, peaceful and respectful dialogue at all levels and spheres of common social concerns. We call upon all Muslim Americans to be involved in solving pressing social problems, such as the challenge of poverty, discrimination, violence, health care and environmental protection. It is fully compatible with Islam for Muslims to integrate positively in the society of which they are equal citizens, without losing their identity as Muslims (just as Jews and Christians do not lose their religious identity in doing the same).

We believe that emphasis on dialogue and positive collaborative action is a far better approach than following the paths of those who thrive on hate mongering and fear propaganda. Anti-Islam, anti-Semitism and other similar forms of religious and/or political-based discrimination are all forms of racism unfit for civilized people and are betrayal of the true American as well as Islamic values.

May the pursuit of peace, justice, love, compassion, human equality and fellowship prevail in the pluralistic mosaic that is the hallmark of our nation.

no inherent conflict

So the Qur’an is compatible with the Constitution?  Compare Surah An-Nisa’ 4:89 to the Bill of Rights.

4:89. They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliyâ’ (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allâh (to Muhammad ). But if they turn back (from Islâm), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliyâ’ (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.

Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, ExpressionRatified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Allah issued a command to kill apostates. The Constitution forbids laws abridging freedom of religion.  How do they hope to square that circle?  Here is one more example just to pile on.

5:38. Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allâh. And Allâh is All­Powerful, All­Wise.

Amendment 8 – Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

sanctity & dignity of human life

The Fiqh Council asserts that Islam promotes those values, so we shall delve into the two most authentic Islamic sources: the Qur’an and Sahih Bukhari to discover the truth of the matter.  The council did not cite the Qur’an in this resolution but others have, quoting Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:32.

5:32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allâh by committing the major sins) in the land!

5:33. The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

Muslims love to quote 5:32, but never quote the next verse. Why is that?  One phrase from that ayeh says it all: “wage war against Allâh”; what does it mean?  Tafsir Ibn Kathir has the answer for us. “`Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. “.

The Qur’an justifies killing disbelievers because of their disbelief, equating it with waging war against Allah.  One hadith in Bukhari’s collection, widely accepted as the most authentic of the six canonical collections, exposes the sanctity and dignity of human life assertion as an egregious lie.

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.”

While the first sentence of that hadith is sufficient to demolish the “religion of peace” meme, it informs us that our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims until we recite Shehada and do things their way.  Only Muslim lives are sacred.

The last sentence of that hadith makes another point crystal clear: only Muslims have human rights.  The assertion that Islam promotes the sanctity & dignity of human life and human rights is fully exposed as a lie.

uphold religious freedom

Allah said something else entirely, the polar opposite of religious freedom. Surah Al-Imran holds an important clue in ayat 85-151. [Click the link and scroll down to read the context.]

3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

If Allah won’t accept choosing Christianity, will his slaves?  The answer is in the context.

3:110. You [true believers in Islâmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad  and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma’rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden), and you believe in Allâh. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fâsiqûn (disobedient to Allâh – and rebellious against Allâh’s Command).

3:111. They will do you no harm, barring a trifling annoyance; and if they fight against you, they will show you their backs, and they will not be helped.

#111 tels us the intended outcome: war against Christians & Jews.  Consider the highlighted clause in #110; what is the meaning of “best of peoples”?  The answer is in a hadith and it does not reflect freedom of religion.

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.

Examine the highlighted clause.  Bringing us to Islam in change is violent & coercive, the polar opposite of religious freedom.  The ultimate contravention of freedom of religion is found in Surah Al-Anfal 8:39 & At-Taubah 9:29.  Those contain the jihad imperatives; fight until loops. Note the terminal conditions, which I have highlighted to make them stand out.

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.

Muslims are commanded to wage war until only Allah is worshiped; until Jews & Christians are subjugated & extorted. Tell me again how the teachings of Islam uphold freedom of religion.

universal moral values

Universal moral values such as the sanctity of marriage?  We turn next to Surah An-Nisa’ 4:24 to examine the morality of Islam.

4:24. Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allâh ordained for you. …

Muslims are prohibited from copulating with married women except those they own. Of course the prohibition of rape is another universal moral value upheld by the teachings of Islam; or is it? There is a hadith which speaks to this issue with stunning clarity.  Moe did not say “don’t rape them’ he ruled against al-Azl.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, “We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.”

just and peaceful co-existence

In Surah Al-Baqarah 2:143 we discover the meaning of just: Muslim. If it ain’t Muslim, it ain’t just. Examine the highlights carefully.

2:143. Thus We have made you [true Muslims – real believers of Islâmic Monotheism, true followers of Prophet Muhammad  and his Sunnah (legal ways)], a Wasat (just) (and the best) nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger (Muhammad ) be a witness over you. And We made the Qiblah (prayer direction towards Jerusalem) which you used to face, only to test those who followed the Messenger (Muhammad ) from those who would turn on their heels (i.e. disobey the Messenger). Indeed it was great (heavy) except for those whom Allâh guided. And Allâh would never make your faith (prayers) to be lost (i.e. your prayers offered towards Jerusalem). Truly, Allâh is full of kindness, the Most Merciful towards mankind.

Surah Al-Imran neatly wraps up the issue of co-existence. Examine the highlights carefully and click through for the full context; to the end of the Surah.

3:64. Say (O Muhammad ): “O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allâh, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allâh. Then, if they turn away, say: “Bear witness that we are Muslims.”

The above cited verse and its context give a strong hint, but fall short of complete clarity; they require external confirmation which is contained in Moe’s extortion letter to the Byzantine Emperor.  The extortion letter preceded the  ghazwat on Tabuk, which is the main focus of Surah At-Taubah.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 1, Number 6:
…The contents of the letter were as follows: “In the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad the slave of Allah and His Apostle to Heraclius the ruler of Byzantine. Peace be upon him, who follows the right path. Furthermore I invite you to Islam, and if you become a Muslim you will be safe, and Allah will double your reward, and if you reject this invitation of Islam you will be committing a sin by misguiding your Arisiyin (peasants). (And I recite to you Allah’s Statement:)

‘O people of the scripture! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but Allah and that we associate nothing in worship with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (those who have surrendered to Allah).’ …

word that is just

The “word that is just” is Islam. The call is to ‘come to Islam’. That is the dawah which precedes invasion if it does not result in surrender. .

Peace be upon him…

But war will be upon him who rejects the call to Islam.

become a Muslim;  be safe

If you do not become a Muslim, you will not be safe; Muslims will wage war against you.

Bear witness that we are Muslims

Why say that except as a veiled threat? The basis of that threat is revealed in Surah Al-Hashr  59:13.

59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh – Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh).

Allah told Moe that he and his army scared the Jews more than Allah did. Moe had built a well deserved reputation for rapacious rapine; which is what Allah talks about when he says that he will “cast terror”.   The context is confirmed by another extortion letter dictated & dispatched by Moe to Ethiopia.

LETTER TO THE SUCCESSOR OF AS’HAMA THE NEGUS

In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

From Muhammad, Prophet of Allah –

To Negus, King of Ethiopia.

His Prophet (Sal Allaho Alehe Wasallam).

I bear witness that there is none to be worshipped except Allah. No one is His associate or partner. He does not stand in need of a wife or children. And I affirm that I am his servant and his Prophet.

I invite you to believe in Allah who is One. If you want security, accept Islam.

O people of the Book! Ignore all matters of difference and dispute, and agree to a thing to which you and we are equally committed, and it is that we should not worship anyone except Allah. And neither should we associate anyone else with Him nor should we regard anyone else as our Sustainer. If they object to it, tell them, “you will bear witness that we believe in Allah.”‘

If you will not accept these, the responsibility of the transgression of your Christian people shall be yours.

Seal: Allah’s Prophet Muhammad

self-defense …

Muslims want us to believe the fabulism that Islam only fights defensively. I already showed you the ayat containing the primary imperatives of offensive jihad. In the early Meccan period, when Moe was weak, with no army, he preached tolerance and forbearance.  At Medina, as his army grew, he preached defensive & retaliatory combat. When his army was ready to take on Mecca, he issued 8:39 & 9:29.

Shari’ah puts proof to the egregious lie: Reliance of the Traveller, Book O and Al Hedaya Volume II, Book IX fall short of perfect clarity individually, but together they are mutually clarifying.

O9.1…In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year….

The destruction of the sword  is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the  sacred writings which are generally received this effect.

War must be carried on against the Infidels, at all times, by some party of the Muslims.

protection of innocent non-combatants

Islam is so moral, isn’t it?  Offensive wars of conquest are ok so long as women and children are protected, right?  Yeah, right!  Lets examine the reality of this egregious al-Taqiyya.  In Sahih Muslim 19.4294, the second most authentic of the canonical hadith collections, Moe’s orders to his field commanders are listed. They are ordered to avoid certain acts that would profane a holy war.  See also Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2608.

…Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children….

What do embezzling spoils and killing children have in common?  Mull it over for a moment, we’ll get back to it.  Next we turn to Malik’s Muwatta, #4 in authenticity, for a real eye opener.

Malik’s Muwatta Book 21, Number 21.3.8:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, ‘The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.’ “

A fighter about to kill a woman remembered Moe’s prohibition and spared her; what a gentleman!  But why did Moe proscribe killing women and children? Obtain a clue from Surah Al-Ahzab.

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.

Who was made captives? Tafsir Ibn Kathir has the answer.

…(a group you killed, and a group you made captives.) Those who were killed were their warriors, and the prisoners were their children and women. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Atiyah Al-Qurazi said, “I was shown to the Prophet on the day of Qurayzah, because they were not sure about me. The Prophet told them to look at me to see whether I had grown any body hair yet. They looked and saw that I had not grown any body hair, so they let me go and I was put with the other prisoners.”…

What would they have done with Atiyah if he had reached puberty?  Such fine, peaceful gentlemen who do not kill children.  Why don’t they kill children?  The next clue comes from Shari’ah, codified in Reliance of the Traveller.

O9.13 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.

For the kill shot, we turn to the Religious and Moral Doctrine on Jihad by Ibn Taymiyyah.

…. Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since the constitute property for Muslims….

What do captive women and children have in common with the spoils?  They are part of the spoils!! Killing them is prohibited because they represent a source of wealth, to be sold on the slave market.

Shari’ah protects religious liberty

Examine the code from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9 to see how Shari’ah protects religious liberty.

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…

 

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax…

Of course, waging war upon people until they convert to your religion is a great way to protect religious liberty.

Shari’ah & secular law

The Fiqh Council says they are compatible; are they?  Our Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual” punishments. Shari’ah requires lashing and amputation.

O16.3

The penalty for drinking is to be scourged forty stripes, with hands, sandals, and ends of clothes. It may be administered with a whip, but if the offender dies, an indemnity (def: o4.4) is due (A: from the scourger) for his death. If the caliph (def: o25) increases the penalty to eighty stripes, it is legally valid, but if the offender dies from the increase, the caliph must pay an adjusted indemnity, such that if he is given forty-one stripes and dies, the caliph must pay 1/41 of a full indemnity.

P21.1 Allah Most High says: “Thieves, male or female–::eut off their hands in retribution for what they have earned, as an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Almighty and Wise” (Koran 5:38).

Islam is compatible with democracy

Democracy involves man made law and a process of consensus. Islam requires Allah’s demonic law.  The two are incompatible because they are polar opposites.  Our laws are made by our bicameral legislature within limits set by our Constitution. Islamic law is the Qur’an & sunnah.

Moe was an autocrat; how can his successors be anything else?  Surah Al-Ahzab  has a clue for you.

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.

Anti-Islam = racism

What race is Islam? It was invented by an Arab, but it has conquered Asians, Caucasians and Negroes. So, what race is it?  Islam is a deen: way of life. That deen is intra-species predation.  One hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud makes this fact abundantly clear. It offsets jihad against commerce and agriculture as inferior economic systems.  It declares jihad to be the original religion of Islam.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.

Islam plays the race card and the hate card to silence its critics because it can not refute the fatal facts displayed above.  Islam is the polar opposite of American values: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Can there be any greater arrogance than that which at once seeks to destroy our way of life; to kill or enslave us and demands that we tolerate it in silence?

November 10, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: