Lets get right down to detail; the important part. For the rest, follow
universal culture of mutual tolerance
and mutual appreciation of one another’s religious convictions. In such
a world, the
voice of the moderates-the voice of reason and compassion-would be heard
clearly over the din of prejudice and bigotry. In a global regime of
tolerance, no war is possible.
As a nation that celebrates its diversity of culture
and religions, Indonesia
calls for mutual respect and understanding among peoples of different
Despite initiatives undertaken by states at the United Nations and
other forums, the
defamation of religions persists. We have seen yet another one of its
ugly face in
the film “Innocence of Muslims” that is now causing an international
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights underlines that in exercising
freedom of expression, everyone must observe morality and public order.
of expression is therefore not absolute.
Hence, I call for an international instrument to
effectively prevent incitement
to hostility or violence based on religions or beliefs. This
instrument, a product of
international consensus, shall serve as a point of reference that the
community must comply with.
If anyone seeks another religion, it will never be accepted of him. Muslims
are the best of peoples as they bring us to Islam with chains on our necks. Christians are prohibited from
public processions, ringing bells, praying or reading the Gospel
aloud in public and building churches. Tolerance is a one way
street; it ain’t mutural!
Respect is given where respect is due; we had to
earn it, so must you. I can not respect a deity who demands genocide as the price of admission to
Paradise. I can not respect a Profit whose prime motivating
factor was loot. I can not respect a Profit who raided
passive settlements, murdered the men and raped their widows. I can not respect a
Profit who revealed situational scripture to give divine
sanction to his sexual proclivities.
defamation of religions
That which is infamous can not be defamed. Moe deliberately built a reputation of barbarian rapine
to improve the efficiency of his extortion letters.
Innocence of Muslims
Moe married a six year old girl, consummating the
marriage when she was nine years old. He arranged the marriage and divorce of his adopted
son so that he could have his bride for his own harem. He
commissioned the murder of his critics. There is no immorality
depicted in the video that moe did not perform.
The creator and publisher of the video did not
breach public order: Muslim rabble, roused by rabid Imams, breached
freedom of expression
Free speech being necessary to a citizens of a
representative republic so that they can honestly discuss public policy
issues with impunity, our courts proscribe only words
deliberately designed to initiate panic or fighting. The video
embedded above does not fall into either of those categories.
This blog post must also be legal because it is necessary that we be
able to identify, describe and warn against threats to our life and
liberty, which Islam presents.
- “fight them until“
- “What is the matter with you, that when you are asked
to march forth in the Cause of Allâh (i.e. Jihâd) you cling heavily to
- “O Prophet (Muhammad
)! Urge the believers to fight.“
- “I have been ordered to fight “
By your standard, Islam, its canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis
& jurisprudence, along with its institutions must be banned.
The Draft Resolution
“Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of,
and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against,
persons based on religion or belief” contains only minor changes,
essentially maintaining the malignant malarkey of HRC 16/18
passed last year.
Now that the draft has been submitted and posted to
the web, you can expect to see and hear more assertions of
victory. The self-appointed experts will tell us that the
“defamation of religions’ meme has been abandoned; proved by the boiler
plate paragraphs carried over from last year’s resolutions.
The draft will be discussed and probably adopted by
consensus Tuesday March 20, 2012. There is nothing we can
do to stop it. The good news is that the resolution has no enforcement
mechanism, its only effect is adding false moral support to Islam’s
victim card narrative and its persecution of indigenous
The draft was submitted by Pakistan on behalf of the
OIC; its initiative is Islamic.
role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression and the full
respect for the freedom to seek, receive and
can play in strengthening
democracy and combating religious intolerance,
Am I the only one who perceives the inversion of
fact and fantasy? Freedom of opinion & expression is the
central target of the resolution. They demand that we tolerate
the intolerable: perpetuation, propagation & promotion of the
concept of divine mandate to conquer and subjugate the entire world
through deception, aggressive wars
of conquest and terrorism. Islam asserts a divine mandate to
us; rape & enslave our widows and orphans while seizing
our real & personal property.
The strategic objective of the resolution is the
enactment & enforcement of national & international legislation
criminalizing all criticism of Islam. When I write “Muhammad was
a terrorist.”, which is substantiated ty Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220,
I mention something impermissible and should be killed according to
Islamic law. They want that law enforced! That is the purpose of
the draft resolution.
While the defamation meme is implicit rather than
explicit in this resolution, the Draft Resolution on “Freedom of religion or belief“
contains, in the seventh paragraph on its second page, an important
clue to reality. Do not overlook this clue!
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
freedom to terrorize
Allah said that he would cast terror: 3:151
said that he cast terror: 33:26,
Moe said that he was made
victorious with terror: Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220. Muslims are commanded to obey
Allah and emulate
Moe. If Islam is equated with terrorism, then it must be
prohibited by law.
Islam is an inseverable package deal: all or
nothing, specified in 2:85.
Believers fight in Allah’s cause, killing and being killed specified
Believers who take any
step to injure or enrage disbelievers get extra credit for an
upgrade to their seat in Allah’s Celestial Bordello.
My right to freedom of opinion & expression; to
state the fact that terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam, must
be subordinated to the Muslims’ right to engage in terrorism.
Islam imposes the death penalty for apostasy,
including reviling Allah, Moe or Islam. The penalty is explicitly
stated in Reliance of the Traveller O8.1; the list of
apostatizing acts in O8.7 tells us what is impermissible to
mention. The rule is extended to dhimmis (conquered Jews &
Christians) in O11.10. Islam does not tolerate criticism of
Moe & Allah. Moe had critics murdered.
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;
are genocidally violent” has meaning as a derogatory stereotype
precisely because Islam
is genocidally violent
(alleged defamation) and Muslims are adherents to Islam. History
shows us that the Hindu, Assyrian & Armenian genocides were
perpetrated by Muslims, on orders of the caliph. The defamation
meme is malignantly false, ostensibly eliminated yet deeply embedded in
the resolution. That which is intrinsically infamous can not be
programmes and agendas
What they have in mind is the Dutch, Swiss &
Austrian freedom parties and “Islamophobic” comments and campaign
advertisements by American politicians.
incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination and
related violence, as well as
of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of
religion or belief, continue
to rise around the world, and 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, consistent with their
international human rights law, to address and combat such
The reference is to Fitna, the 15 minute documentary
by Geert Wilders, the Motoons,
International Burn the Koran Day & International Judge the Koran
Day. If it is critical of Islam and receives high profile
public attention, it is an incident, according to the OIC.
advocacy & incitement
Words have meanings, but the standard meanings do
not apply when Muslims utter them. Spoken by Muslims and their
dhimmis, words mean what Muslims want them to mean, not what we expect
them to mean. Exposing Islam’s advocacy of hatred and incitement
to genocidal violence is, in their double speak, advocacy &
incitement. Nothing illustrates that fact better than this
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 based on
religion or belief;
measures to criminalize
Anyone not suffering from cranial-rectal
juxtaposition should recognize that as a demand to outlaw Fitna, the
Motoons and every expression critical of Islam.
The WordPress Forum thread about BNI has been closed, the last word being: “Now that we have descended into pointless name-calling I am closing this thread.”. who “descended into pointless name calling?
It’s really hard to form an opinion of BNI without having read the site.
But the extremist, bigoted, racist views expressed here give a good idea of the kind of whacko it attracted.
Gleaned from the sickening streak of hate this thread contains:
There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.
I live an work with Muslim people, and find them solid, upstanding people who wish the world no harm.
There are extremists everywhere. They’re the problem, not average Muslims.
The landing page of that blog does not indicate a political or philosophical knowledge of or orientation toward Islam and related issues. The author admits not having enough knowledge to judge BNI, then he launches into the forum participants with argumentum ad hominem. Evidently lettershometoyou is too indolent to search for the Yahoo cache of BNI and see it for himself. Instead of doing due diligence, he launches:
Only one quote is cited: “no such thing as a moderate Muslim”, which is dismissed with the author’s narrow personal experience which he expands by generalization to encompass the ummah-al-Islamiyya. It is evident that the author is unaware of Allah’s Qur’anic injunctions against equal and inferior relationships with Kuffar. Muslims are strictly prohibited from being friends with disbelievers except to deceive them for their own personal safety if a threat is perceived.
Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers. […] (unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, “The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.”
Islam is not moderate, it is genocidally violent, by design. To fully comprehend the fatal fact, one must read the following citations from Islam’s canonical texts.
- Sunan Abu Dawud 38.4390
- Sahih Bukhari 1.8.367
- Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9
- Hedaya Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1
Moe divided Muslims into two classes: believers and hypocrites. Those who implement Allah’s genocidal imperatives are believers, those who shirk jihad are hypocrites. Do not take my word for this, I am not an authority; take Allah’s word for it, and Moe’s. Believers fight in Allah’s cause, killing others and being killed. The rest are either hypocrites in whose hearts is a disease or have not been called to fight yet.
Lettershometoyou followed up with another post:
Evidently lettershometoyou is omniscient, knowing what everybody wants while we are “extremists […] haters […] spreading lies”. How will he explain the conquests of Arabia, India, Turkey, North Africa and South East Europe? How did a tiny minority of extremist Muslims conquer nearly half the world without majority support?
Lettershometoyou angered an EDL member, trinovante, who responded in kind.
@lettershometoyou,by god you are a fool !
You CLEARLY know nothing of Islamic history,the Qur’an or Hadith you odious
little man.Still you have some “Muslim’s who you work with”,so you must know
everything about Islamic doctrine?
You dangerous left wing idiot.
The thread ended with one last left wing slur which I will not quote here. I fully understand why WordPress is sensitive about this issue and wants to squelch discussion of it. Succumbing to intimidation to shut down a major traffic generator must be very painful. If name calling was an issue, the forum moderator would have deleted the four offending posts and allowed the thread to continue.
I did a little research on BNI and found some interesting statistics for the blog.
* These numbers are so unrealistic that I presume they apply to the entire WordPress domain, not to a single sub domain blog.
117,087 page views/month
Those numbers ain’t trivial. Even if we accept the lowest evaluation, a sub domain name worth nearly $500,. is too good to waste if it is bringing 100K visitors to WordPress every month. At snooper.wordpress,com, the post about BNI received 25 page views, while the average daily page views for the blog has been less than 20 this week. At Islam Exposed, it got 16 hits. Page ranks for searches for Bare Naked Islam ranged from 9 to 45 in the Google serps. The post at Bloggersbase had 125 views.
If three thousand people are learning the truth about the doctrines & practices of Islam every day, its no wonder that CAIR is determined to silence it. But the blog’s creator is dedicated, motivated & persistent. She will rebuild the blog, bigger and better than before and the publicity resulting from CAIR’s intimidation tactics will increase the size of the blog’s audience.
There is a sucker born every minute, because if we did not suck, we would not survive. Unfortunately, there is a surplus of adult bottom feeders who will cheerfully take and run with any bait. A Google search for UN + “Defamation of Religions” turned up several news articles in addition to those in yesterday’s alert.
Human Rights First – 5 hours agoHuman Rights First has worked for years to reverse the tide of defamation of religions at the UN , and has welcomed HRC resolution 16/18 as well as this most recent General Assembly resolution. We believe it is important for governments to now…
The Cutting Edge – Dec 18, 2011[will] help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.” It unfairly held up the American experience for …
Prospectus – Dec 18, 2011Although the latest resolution refers to “incitement” rather than “defamation” of religion (which appeared in the 2005 resolution), it continues the disingenuous effort to justify crackdowns on religious critics in the name of human rights law. …
Canada Free Press – Dec 19, 2011The Obama administration started down this ill-advised road by cosponsoring in 2009 an OIC-drafted resolution in the UNHuman Rights Council that condemned “defamation of religion” – read, Islam. That initiative helped advance the Islamists’ …
|UN drops call to outlaw ‘defamation of religions‘
AP The call on countries to prohibit “defamation” had been included in a … decisive break from the polarizing focus in the past on defamation of religions.”
|UN General Assembly Abandons Dangerous “Defamation of Religion …
Human Rights First
“Today’s unanimous vote marks a decisive break from the polarizing focus in the past on defamation of religions.” said Human Rights First’s Tad Stahnke. …
|UN condemns religious intolerance, drops ‘defamation‘
… religious intolerance without urging states to outlaw “defamation of religions,” an appeal critics said opened the door to abusive “blasphemy” laws. …
|UN condemns religious intolerance, drops ‘defamation‘
L had won majority approval in UN rights bodies in Geneva and at the UN General Assembly for annual resolutions on “combating defamation of religions. …
|UN condemns religious intolerance, drops ‘defamation’ line for first …
By Louis Charbonneau
For the first time in more than a decade, the U.N. General Assembly on Monday condemned religious intolerance without urging states to outlaw defamation of religions, an appeal critics said opened the door to abusive blasphemy laws.
|UN drops call to outlaw ‘defamation of religions‘ – Beverly Hills …
Teen BHEF met Tuesday to approve their revised by-laws and present awards of appreciation to Sandy West of The Beverly Hilton and Corrine Verdery of Oasis …
|UN drops call to outlaw ‘defamation of religions‘ – TODAY News …
The U.N. General Assembly on Monday condemned religious intolerance without urging states to outlaw “defamation of religions.”
|UN drops call to outlaw ‘defamation of religions‘ – Newsvine
‘Governments should now focus on concrete measures to fight religiously motivated violence … while recognizing the importance of freedom of expression,’ …
Only two out of twelve articles reflect objective factual reality, the rest swallow the bait. That is not a good sign. Lets sneak around the gate of the defamation meme and examine the core issue. Words have meanings, but Muslims assign their own meanings to common words.We must not assume that those words mean what they say when spoken by Muslims.
The opening of the 15th session of the Human Rights Council was marked by an address from Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC.
deliberately meant to defame religions as well incite hatred, xenophobia, discrimination and
violence against religions, in particular Islam. The increasing incidents of violence and
discrimination on the basis of religion must not be ignored. We hope that this and other
related issues remain an important priority in the work of the Council.
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.
On August 24,2010 I issued a cautionary statement on the plan to burn the Holy Qur’an and
urged the American people as a whole as well as the world community to reject the call of the
Gainesville Church pastor[….]
In this regard all xenophobic campaigns of fear mongering and discriminatory
measures – both in policy and practice – which restrict, prohibit or discriminate against of any
religion such as ban on the constriction of minarets, organization of events that incite hatred
like Burn a Koran Day, and other discriminatory measures must be strongly condemned by
the international community. A recurrence of such events substantiate OIC’s call for a
normative approach to deal with this menace that continues to pose a clear ‘and present danger
to peace, security ‘and stability in the regional as well as the global context. Such acts fuel
discrimination, extremism and mis-perception leading to polarization and fragmentation with
dangerous unintendecl ancl unforeseen consequences.[…]
[…]such events which endanger peaceful coexistence
between nations and create an environment conducive to violence
The first three sentences quoted above are loaded with meaning which must be dissected and examined.
In this case, one event: International Burn The Qur’an Day, which was scheduled for 09/11/10 to commemorate the accursed abomination by highlighting the Qur’an verses which inspired it. The event was called off under intense government pressure.
deliberately meant to
How does anyone know the intention of the event unless it is clearly stated? The stated purpose of the event was to foster awareness of Islamic doctrines and their real world consequences. But Ihsanoglu assigns other intentions which he projects onto the event from afar.
Defamation is false and malicious. What is false about connecting the dots; Allah’s sanctification of terror, his casting terror resulting in death, captivity & dispossession, Moe’s bragging about terror making him victorious and the abominable act motivated by Allah’s imperative, threat and promise?
Pastor Jones was not inciting anyone to do anything more than incinerate the book which inspired the “Magnificent 19”. Nothing was to be said, implied or illustrate to incite anyone to assault Muslims. He issued no war cry or call to arms and implied none.
It is only natural for a nation under attack and threat of attack to hate its attackers and the damnable doctrines which motivate them and inspire them to attempt genocide & politicide. No incitement is needed to make intelligent and informed Americans hate Islam.
People naturally make choices. If we choose to avoid association with and proximity to persons made inimical to us by their ideology, that is discrimination, but it is not evil.
Hating a man for his skin pigment is evil. Hating a man because he adheres to an ideology which enjoins him to kill or enslave you is not evil, it is common sense. Warning people about that ideology and its consequences is not inciting hatred. Hatred is incited by the ideology and the acts it inspires.
When Pastor Jones tried and burned a Qur’an in March of 2011, rioting broke out in Pakistan. The riots were not incited by anything in Gainesville, they were incited by what was preached in the mosques at Jumah Salat. The politicians and media dare not make the connection between the riots and the end of Friday afternoon sermons. Instead, they prefer to blame an unrelated event separated by thousands of miles and several days.
events that incite hatred
Beirut Embassy bombing
USS Cole bombing
London subway bombing
Madrid rail bombing
endanger peaceful coexistence
Trying and burning a Qur’an did not start a war; what did? have you forgotten? When such a threat is issued, why do we lift Satan’s tail and pucker up?
Defamation, while prominently cited, is not the issue. Examine this transcript of remarks by Pakistan’s Ambassador at the 16th session of the HRC.
Mr. Zamir Akram
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
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
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
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
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.
Akram’s screed contains numerous lies, which have been dissected in another blog post.
number of issues
The ostensible objection to depicting Moe is idolatry. There are two problems with that. First, Moe ain’t supposed to be the deity, Allah is. Second, nobody would possibly make those cartoons an object of idolatry. The real reason for objecting to their publication is their depicting Moe as a terrorist.
Moe could not have possessed a bomb because he died prior to the invention of gunpowder. Moe cast terror by a series of barbarian attacks, deliberately building a reputation for barbarian repine, so that he was more feared than Allah. Moe bragged about being made victorious by awe & terror. What more do you need to know to make a judgment?
The 15 minute documentary juxtaposes Qur’an verses and ahadith with the rabid rants of Imams at Jumah Salat and resulting acts of terror and rioting. Fitna does not incite violence, it exposes incitement. Fitna: Supporting Documentation 03/27/08 documents the ayat quoted in the documentary. Though words have meanings, we must be aware of the meanings intended by Muslims. HRC 16/18 & Draft resolution XVII appear to concentrate on incitement.
discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audiovisual
or electronic media or any other means;
that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;
(0 Adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence
based on religion or belief;
What is it? Am I inciting hatred and violence by exposing the damnable doctrines of Islam which inculcate hatred and incite violence? There is only one way to know the meaning: we must examine recent exemplary statements. This one, by Secretary Ban Ki-moon is dispositive.
According to the Secretary General, Fitna constitutes hate speech & incitement not protected by freedom of expression. From that statement, it is clear tha the intention of HRC 16/18 and Draft resolution XVII is to criminalize all criticism of Islam.
What is the difference between stereotyping and defamation? Because Moe was a terrorist, who commanded Muslims to emulate himself, and because Allah commanded terrorism, Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and because selectivity is prohibited, all Muslims are potential terrorists. To the extent that they are believers in Allah, his promise and his threat, they will eventually participate in an attack. If it were not true, this paragraph would be defamatory. Even though it is true, it is negative and it is stereotyping, condemned by the resolutions. In any case,
Islam is terrorism! Allah sanctified it & engaged in it. Moe bragged about being made victorious by it. To those bigots who who deny the obvious facts previously documented by reference to the Qur’an & hadth, this is defamatory. Previous resolutions condemned associating Islam with terrorism. These resolutions omit that meme, so, has the UN abandoned the defamation meme? HELL NO!!! And I will prove it. Draft resolution XVII ain’t the only resolution passed by acclamation Dec. 19. I know something you don’t know but are about to find out.
may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion
or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned;
¶10, on page 3 of Draft resolution XVIII, emphasizes that Islam must not be equated with terrorism, which it is by the testimony of its own deity & founder previously cited. Equation with terrorism fits the defamation meme, and it has not been dropped or abandoned by the UN, it lives on in a concurrent resolution. The suckers have swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker.
¶12(j), on page 4, belies the assertion that freedom of expression is not threatened.
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;
For the Morons among my readers, “all necessary and appropriate action” means legislation to combat “incitement to hostility and violence”, which means: Fitna, the Motoons and this blog post.
No doubt the Moronic chorus will begin chanting: “that ain’t in the resolution under discussion”. To which I gleefully reply: Ye Suckers!!! Assumptions make asses of you!
based on religion or belief;
¶5(f) on page 5 of Draft resolution XVII, proves you wrong. “Adopting measures to criminalize” is a code phrase for legislation. They are demanding passage & enforcement to establish criminal punishment for publications such as Fitna, the Motoons and this blog post. Remember, Ban Ki-Moon defined the terms for us.
Legislation to criminalize the publication of Fitna, the Motoons and this blog post will not limit free speech. Yeah, right ;=(
The Secretary General of the United Nations issued his annual report on combating defamation of religions [Islam] September 23. I present a link to the report below, along with several important excerpts. I have also included a list of links to various documents referenced in the report.
Combating defamation of religions
Report of the Secretary-General
This issue came to the front burner in 1999 when the HRC passed the original resolution combating defamation of Islam. Because of the ensuing controversy, subsequent resolutions substituted religions for Islam in their titles but their contents belie the distinction without a difference. My sources confirm the original title, but the document linked above lacks it; I presume it has been bowdlerized.
It is difficult to find the resolution; in my search for it, I found an important quote attributed to Masood Khan, representing Pakistan at the UN.
There is one little problem: the element of falsity.
calumny: She suedthe magazine for defamation of character. [Emphasis added]
“Islam promotes violence”
“Islam promotes violence” is not defamatory if it is true. “Terrorism is an Islamic tactic” is not defamatory if it is true. Those statements do not defame Islam or stereotype Muslims unless they are false.
“Islam promotes violence” is either true or false. The veracity of the statement can be verified by reference to Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence. Allah said that he ordained jihad for Muslims.
Hilali & Khan included a definition of jihad in a parenthetical expression. They give a fuller definition in their footnote to 2:190. Islamic law defines jihad as “to war against non-Muslims”. Islamic law declares annual military expeditions against disbelievers to be a “communal obligation”. Al-Shafi’i put it this way:
Al-Ghazali said something similar:
Islamic law says that the caliph “The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians… ” In the next section (O9.9) it says that the caliph “fights all other peoples until they become Muslim”. Why would Islamic law make such statements? Only because of what Allah & Moe said and did. “Ordained” was not Allah’s last word on the subject. “Fight them“, “fight those who“, “Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you” . Moe said that he was “ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.”
What did Moe do to implement those jihad imperatives? He dictated and dispatched extortion letters, and followed up with his army. See. for example, the letter to the Jews at Khaibar, and the oral tradition about his raid on them.
Examine the critical quote again, because I have a prime example for you: “Islam promotes violence”. This is the heading from Book 21 of Malik’s Muwatta: “Section: Stimulation of Desire for Jihad” The title of Riyad us-Saliheen, Book 11, Chapter 234 is “Obligation of Jihad”. It quotes the relevant ayat & ahadith with commentary.
Islam is intrinsically violent, by design. It has not been perverted, distorted nor hijacked; it promotes violence because violence was Moe’s source of income. Doubt this? How did Allah make Moe wealthy?
This is not defamation of Islam because it is truthful, proven so by Islam’s own canon. This is not stereotyping of Muslims because Allah stated their obligations, defined believers as those who “fight in” his cause, promised them Paradise if they do and Hell if they don’t. Islam is all or nothing, Muslims are not allowed to select the verses they like.
“Terrorism is an Islamic tactic.”
Most of the Qur’anic references to terror are concerned with what Allah will do to when the world ends. Those are not important to this discussion; the others are. Allah said that he would cast terror. He said that he cast terror. He said that the Jews were more afraid of Moe and his army than of him.
Islam Awakened presents a table of 37 parallel translations. Here are some interesting samples from 8:57.
- to strike fear
- then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear
- deal with them in such a manner that those that follow them should abandon their designs and may take warning
- use them to frighten off anyone who comes in their rear
- set an example of their humiliation serving as a deterrent
- make a fearsome example of them
- disperse thou through them those behind them,
- make a harsh example of them
- deal with them in such a manner as to deter those behind them
- (by inflicting an exemplary punishment upon them) disperse those behind them
- make them a fearsome example
- so as to strike terror among them
- then thereby strike fear in those that are behind them
- strike terror in those that are behind them
- make of them a fearsome example
8:60 is another prime source of terror references.
- to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies
- to strike terror into the hearts and minds of Allah’s enemy
- you terrorize/terrify with it God’s enemy
- to strike terror thereby
- so that you may strike terror into the hearts of your enemy
- Cause terror with this (war readiness) amongst the enemy of Allah
- so that you strike terror into the enemies of Allah
- to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah
- that you may strike terror in (the hearts of) the enemies of God
- whereby you may frighten the enemy of ALLAH
- to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God
- you shall strike terror through it
- to threaten the enemy of Allah
- that you may overawe the enemies of Allah
- whereby ye may strike a terror into the enemy of God,
- whereby ye may strike terror into the enemy of God
Moe also had something to say about how he was made victorious: ” Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey. “; “I have been made victorious with terror “. Who associated Islam with terrorism?
Back to the report, this paragraph quotes from another big title officer. [Emphasis added.]
World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, burned a copy of the Koran. The
incident elicited strong condemnation on the part of the United States Government
and religious leaders from different faiths across the world. It also resulted in
violent reactions, including the killing of United Nations staff and others in
Afghanistan. Both the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-
General replied to letters from the Organization of the Islamic Conference
condemning those acts, which divided peoples and societies, and reaffirming the
collective interest of the international community in countering acts of intolerance.
The Secretary-General also condemned the incident and said that such actions
cannot be condoned by any religion. He also condemned the killing of the United
Nations staff in response. In addition, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on
freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of
racism sent joint communications about those incidents.
Pastors Terry & Sapp hosted a moot trial of the Qur’an, conducted in Arabic and spanning four hours prior to the burning. The trial included a qualified Imam and several expert witnesses, at least two of whom are converts from Islam to Christianity. Why would they find the Qur’an “guilty” of inciting violence?
The violent reactions did not result from the trial & burning of the Qur’an, they resulted from rabble rousing Imams spewing hatred at Jumah Salat. Check out the day and time of those riots. They occurred after Friday prayers.
UN staff had nothing to do; no connection to the trial & burning of the Qur’an in Florida. There is no logical relationship between the two acts. Peoples and societies are divided by the belief of some that they have a divine obligation to conquer the rest. What did Allah & Moe say that might give them that conceited idea?
Qur’an burning is an act of outrage, not intolerance. The Qur’an does not tolerate the existence of disbelievers. Our right to live and worship as we choose or not is the primary issue at stake. Islam’s canon denies those rights, inciting outrage which is expressed by incinerating Qur’ans.
The trial & burning of the Qur’an was not condoned by Christianity, it was performed by two pastors and their congregation. They burned the book which curses them, condemns them to Hell and commands Muslims to wage war upon them.
¶79 is an obvious demand for legislation to prohibit criticizing Islam & burning Qur’ans. It blames the innocent for the independent criminal actions of the guilty.
expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person …
they constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society”. It
further recognizes that “freedoms of opinion and expression form a basis for the full
enjoyment of a wide range of other human rights”.
82. The General Comment also expounded the extent of lawful restrictions that
can be imposed on the right to freedom of expression, prescribing that any
restrictions to freedom of expression must be compatible with the strict
requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The General Comment also deals with the relationship between
articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
prescribing that “a limitation that is justified on the basis of article 20 must also
comply with article 19, paragraph 3”. On this point, it underscores that “it is only
with regard to the specific forms of expression indicated in article 20 that States
parties are obliged to have legal prohibitions”. In every other case — while the State
is not precluded in general terms from having such prohibitions — in which the
“State restricts freedom of expression, it is necessary to justify the prohibitions and
their provisions in strict conformity with article 19”.
I do not see any sign that Ban Ki-moon shares the opinion of the committee of experts who composed Comment 34.
religions per se are rights-holders. Whereas the debate concerning the dissemination
of expression which may offend the adherents of religions or faiths has throughout
the past 12 years evolved around the notion of “defamation of religions”, they
welcomed the fact that the debate appeared to be shifting to the concept of
“incitement to national, racial or religious hatred”. In his thematic report at the
sixteenth session of the Human Rights Council,3 the Special Rapporteur on freedom
of religion or belief noted that school education could and should contribute to the
elimination of negative stereotypes, which often poison the relationship between
different communities. He stressed that such negative stereotypes had particularly
detrimental effects on minorities and with regard to religious or belief communities.
The Special Rapporteur highlighted the importance of eradicating stereotypes and
prejudices that constitute the root causes of fear, resentment and hatred in order to
prevent violence and human rights abuses.
I presented sufficient evidence to establish the fact that Islam is not defamed by describing its jihad imperatives & promotion of war through carrot and stick doctrines. If a Muslim goes to war, he goes to Paradise; if not, he goes to Hell. Stating this fatal fact is not defamatory because it is truthful, based on Surah At-Taubah 38-39 & Surah As-Saff 10-13.
At the time of its publication, Ban Ki-moon described Fitna, Geert Wilders’ short documentary exposing the nexus between the Qur’an & terrorism as “hate speech” & “incitement”. It is the Qur’an, not Fitna which constitutes “hate speech” & “incitement” to hatred and violence.
If a Muslim is a believer, he “fights in Allah’s cause”, “killing others and being killed”. That definition of believer is contained in Surah At-Taubah 111. Muslims are commanded to “Obey Allah and the Messenger“. Allah commanded them to fight us until only Allah is worshiped; until we are subjugated and submit to extortion. Are they then Muslims who sit at home? Surely they are hypocrites, not believers who are only those who join the jihad.
Allah said “Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much. ” How is a Muslim to obey Moe without emulating his exemplary conduct? What did he say about how he was made victorious? How did Allah make him wealthy??
You can not be Muslim without being evil. That is a fatal fact, not a negative stereotype. Allah commands obedience, which he rewrds with gardens flowing with rivers of wine and punishes with the fire. What did he command Muslims to do? Was there something about cutting off our heads, fingers and toes? 8:12
What did Moe do to the men and adolescent boys of the Banu Qurayzah? He besieged them for two weeks, when they surrendered he slaughtered them in beautiful downtown Medina. How in Hell does a Muslim obey Allah and his Messenger without engaging in terrorism & genocide?? This is a fact, not a negative stereotype. “It is not for a Prophet” that he should hold prisoners for ransom until he has made great slaughter. This is not negative stereotyping, it is stating the fatal facts as contained in Islam’s canon. If Allah’s slaves are offended by revelation of these fatal facts, they should break his yoke of slavery and rejoin the human race.
in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world in various
ways. States and national actors are taking measures to combat these
phenomena and the majority of these actions are in the constitutional and
legislative domain. The principles of equality and non-discrimination as well as
freedom of religion and freedom of expression and opinion are provided for at
the highest level through constitutional enshrinement. Most States have such
provisions on freedom of expression and opinion and freedom of religion and
belief, to varying extents. Some States have prohibitions, inter alia, on the
vilification and desecration of religious symbols, sites, places of worship, and
sacred grounds. In the submissions received, there is often a concurrent
criminal regime for the prohibition of actions infringing the freedom of religion
and belief at the national level. Where advocacy and incitement to hatred is
criminalized, it is often prohibited on several grounds, including racial,
national and ethnic or religious.
incitement, intolerance and hatred
On what day of the week and at what time of day do riots, bombing & burning of churches and the homes & business of Christians occur in Africa, Arabia & Asia? Why on friday? Why after Jumah Salat? There is no innocent explanation. What does Allah tell Muslims to do? What did Moe do that they must emulate? Do expressions such as “fight them until” and “be harsh against them” have any meaning for you? Do you have a brain? Can you obtain a clue??
freedom of religion
Where in domestic or international law is the right to conquer enshrined? Muslims are commanded to fight pagans until only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. Muslims are commanded to fight Jews & Christians until we are subjugated and submit to perpetual extortion. We must not build or repair churches, display crosses, ring church bells, hold public processions or funerals.
If there is no right to conquer, then there is no right to practice Islam. Show me, by God, exactly where the right to invade & conquer is enshrined in law other than in Reliance of the Traveller, Hedaya & Risala.
Where in domestic or international law is the right to rape enshrined? Show me, by God, exactly where it is written that Muslims have a right to sexually exploit capive women except in the Qur’an, hadith, and Shari’ah compiled there from! God bless you, can you read and comprehend? What is the meaning of this:
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.” [Bukhari 5.59.459]
Moe did not just say he was ordered to fight us, he said that until we become Muslims our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights. Exactly how in Hell can there be a right to believe that, propagate it and act upon it? If there is any such right, then all our rights are null and void. It is therefore impossible that there can be any right to propagate and practice Islam.
freedom of expression
The first amendment to the US Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the freedom of speech. It therefore remains legal for me to reveal the fatal facts of Islam as documented by its canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence. This is exactly what Ban Ki-moon & co. seek to outlaw.
If we can not accurately name and describe the enemy and his doctrines & practices, then we will be rendered defenseless. That is their objective. If you harbor any doubts about this, crack open the Risala & Reliance of the Traveller and start reading. If the expression “anything impermissible” is too vague for you, turn to O8.7 to see the detailed list of prohibited speech.
contributions. The importance of public education in promoting tolerance and
understanding in the public education system was noted. The value of ongoing
public awareness-raising by the State, national human rights institutions,
non-governmental organizations, faith groups and religious organizations, the
media and other partners at the national level especially was underlined. The
media has a significant role, and some contributions highlighted its use in
educating the public about different cultures and religions, in counteracting
contentious political discourse and divisive speech, and as a means for
disseminating balanced information and portrayals, as well as bringing
together groups and adherents of different religions and faiths.
¶91 promotes indoctrination, not education.
What could be more obnoxious? How can any sentient & self-respecting lover of life & liberty tolerate the arrogant assumption of supremacism which assumes global conquest to be a divine right & mandate? I can not tolerate that which seeks to disposses & kill me, enslaving my widow and orphans. I can not accept any suggestion or demand that I should tolerate it.
Ban seeks to criminalize raising awareness of the existential threat of Islam. He wants the organs of the state to spew propaganda and paint a false image of benign & anodyne religion; the polar opposite of the objective factual reality of Islam.
I prefer truthful information that can be objectively evaluated and verified. That is why I provide links to my sources so that readers can explore the context and verify the quotes. Allah said “fight them”; Moe said “I am commanded to fight”. Moe fought in 17 battles and ordered about 60 more in which he did not directly participate. Sahih Bukhari’s books of Jihad & Expedition describe the circumstances of some of those battles. The book of Khumus describes how Moe divided the loot. Tafsirs confirm the obvious meaning of Allah’s jihad imperatives. Shari’ah codifies what Allah said and Moe did. Africa, Arabia, half of Asia and South East Europe were not conquered by a “religion of peace” Peace has no part in barbarian conquest. This subject matter requires truth, not not malignant malarkey.
External references cited in the report:
Renewed calls for restoration of the ‘fairness doctrine’ & the LibTard chorus chanting the mantra of ‘civility’ followed the recent Arizona Massacre as flowers follow a spring rain. Blood is the natural fertilizer of idiotic demands for tyranny.
The heinous act was not solicited, prompted or suggested by ‘extremists’ shouting ‘hate filled’ rants on talk radio. It was not related to the recent political campaign season. It was the independent act of a lone gunman acting out his own fantasy. Local law enforcement had several opportunities to prevent the slaughter. Now they cover their incompetence & misfeasance by falsely assigning blame to others who had nothing to do with the affair.
Remember Shrub’s ‘new tone in Washington’ ? It was a single flute drowned out by dozens of braying jackasses. ‘Chimpy McBush’, ‘Bush lied and thousands died’ etc. There were a book and a movie about assassinating Shrub, both celebrated by the left. Then there was Dan Rather’s infamous attack with spurious documents.
Does anyone remember a famous actor ranting about wanting to stone Congressman Henry Hyde to death? Where was the outpouring of outrage over that blood thirsty rant? There was note, because this issue is all one sided.
Hannity, Levin & Limbaugh spent several days replaying sound bytes of outrageous statements by president Obama and his cronies. Those sound bytes fall on deaf ears.
The LibTards are determined to squelch opposition voices. They don’t want tone control or volume control, they want content control. Their demand is 180° out of phase with the First Amendment. Political speech must be protected speech because representative government requires the adversary process of debate.
If they can’t get their way in the legislature or the courts, they will turn to regulation by fiat. Thus we have the FCC’s recent ‘net neutrality’ ruling. Ostensibly about preventing internet service providers from throttling competitor’s content, it is really about content control and raising revenue. Incrementally, little by little, they will expand the rules to regulate content. At the same time they will impose fees to ‘cover the cost’ of enforcing the rules.
Vlad Tepes published a video clip from the trial of Geert Wilders. Run time is only 4:41, but the dialogue is fact paced, and the sub titles flash by rapidly. On first viewing, I am not certain of the attitude of the chairman of the bench. It seems to be antagonistic, but there may be a subtext of delving deeper into the issues. It could also be some kind of perverse attack, like taunting a bull in the ring. I need to replay the video.
I discover on review that I misinterpreted the Chairman’s opening comments. I thought he was closing the court to the audience for the duration of Geert’s remarks, instead, he was directing them to let the Court depart first for security reasons.
What is the big deal about debate? Does the court desire to engage Wilders in debate on the details of Islamic doctrine & practices to which he objects and which he exposed?
Why does Wilders declare that he has said all he has to say on the subject? He stands by his statements, but seems unwilling to give a detailed defense of them. Have the judges, prosecution or defense considered the documentation I published? Does the court expect the defense to prove every point? Would they allow him to speak freely if he tried to offer proof?
It appears as though Wilders is wary of being entrapped; provoked to say something outrageous that the prosecution could seize upon to convict him.
On a recent visit to California, Geert Wilders, Dutch M.P., spoke about freedom of speech and the threat posed to it by Islam & the appeasers. Front Page Magazine published a transcript of the speech: Free Speech vs. Islam in Europe, which I urge you to read. The excerpt below packs a great deal of truth into one paragraph, without furnishing proof. Wilders left it to the audience to read the Koran and verify the truth for themselves.
Allow me to give you a brief introduction to Islam, an Islam 101. The first thing everyone needs to know about Islam is the importance of the Koran. As you probably know the Koran calls for submission, hatred, violence, murder, terrorism and war. The Koran calls upon Muslims to kill non-Muslims. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs. The biggest problem is that the Koran is to be considered as Allah’s personal word, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. That’s the reason why the Koran is not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims, but a moderate Islam does not exist. As the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan once said: “There is no moderate Islam, Islam is Islam”. For once I have to agree with this islamist Turkish Prime Minister.
The Koran is available in many translations, languages and formats. I prefer the Hilali & Khan translation for research. Some prefer Shakir, and many prefer Yusuf Ali. The Resources page at Moe’s Murder Cult contains links to sites from which you can download a fair variety of Korans and many other books.
For those who prefer reading on line, the Muslim Student Association at U.S.C. presents three parallel translations of the Koran and four hadith collections. Yet Another Qur’an Browser is a search engine which displays a table of up to ten translations. Search Truth has a hadith search engine which can search any of the four top hadith collections. Qtafsir has a search engine for Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir, which explains that which should be obvious to you.
Shari’ah is also available on line; someone went to the trouble of scanning more than 1200 pages of Umdat as-Salik. That large, unformatted text file can be searched with the Windows search function invoked with the Ctrl F key combination. It takes a few minutes to load on dialup. Scribid displays a scanned image of the book. Somehow they arranged a means of searching it, which works much faster than I expected.
Craig Winn synthesized five major texts to produce The Prophet of Doom, which may be described as polemic. Reading it will require some patience and dedication; it stretches to 1000 pages. You can learn a great deal by browsing the Islamic Quotes section.
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. ” Benjamin Franklin [http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ot-quotes.html#QFree]
“Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.” Benjamin Franklin [http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ot-quotes.html#QFree]
From News Max comes word that Senator Jim DeMint’s Broadcaster Freedom Act passed the Senate 87-11 as an amendment to an unrelated bill giving a voting representative to Washington D.C. Senator Dick Durbin’s Ownership Diversity amendment also passed 57-41.
The Socialists seek to squelch dissent, to silence dissenting voices by imposing economic penalties, denial of licensing, “local advisory” boards or restrictions on broadcast station ownership.
If they can restore “equal time” requirements, forcing broadcast stations to waste air time on left wing radio shows that can not draw and retain audience share, the loss in revenue will force broadcasters to drop the more popular conservative shows.
If they can set limits on how many stations a corporation can own, and issue more licenses to “minority owners” who are presumed to be more Socialistic in their outlook, they hope to reduce the number of stations carrying the more popular conservative shows.
If they can force broadcasters to institute “local advisory” boards, stacked with left wingers, who will whine & caterwaul about airing conservative opinions, they will have another excuse to deny licenses to those broadcasters.
In every case, the objective is to penalize broadcasters who provide what we want to hear. The Socialists want to assure a monopoly for their agenda driven house organs which print and broadcast their propaganda on their schedule without asking critical questions to expose their incompetence & corruption.
In a Representative Republic, an informed electorate is necessary to ensure competence and fiduciary trust. In the long run, an informed electorate is necessary to assure the preservation of liberty and prosperity. The Socialists want a one sided debate; a monologue, not a Dialogue. Competent electors will recognize the fact that “just us” is not justice.
There is nothing fair about the so called Fairness Doctrine; it is the acme of unfairness. When broadcasters operate in a free market, listeners vote with their tuners. They seek out the stations and programs they want and ignore the rest. Broadcasters sink or swim by adjusting their programming according to consumer demand. Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin & Stabenow seek to defeat the market so as to cement their party in power forever.
Far from fairness, theirs is an Unfairness Doctrine; an unconstitutional imposition of censorship. In their Orwellian lexicon, fairness is anything that benefits them and disadvantages their critics and electoral opponents.
In their campaign to squelch dissent, they rely on a shibboleth which, if carefully examined, reveals their dishonesty & corruption. “Public Airwaves” is their favorite. When it comes to radio, there is no such thing. Radio is not dependent on air, it would work just as well in a vacuum. It works by modulating electromagnetic radiation: “radio waves” with with sound. The waves are locally generated, on demand, by oscillators, modulated and amplified, all with privately owned electronic equipment and powered by electricity which the broadcasters pay for. There is no public resource involved.
The FCC allocates frequencies and sets power limits to assure that broadcast stations do not interfere with or jam each other’s signals. There is absolutely no rational basis for the unconstitutional censorship which the Socialists seek to impose upon their critics. The Socialists have a near total monopoly in the daily& monthly print media and in broadcast & cable television. A.M. radio is the one market they do not control, and they seek to monopolize it.
This issue is about content: they seek to stop speech which criticizes them, which questions their intentions, methods, policies, connections and effects. They don’t want us to hear the truth about their associations and policies. They would muzzle the guard dog and silence the canary in the coal mine.
Make no mistake, freedom of expression is necessary to facilitate full and complete debate of all sides of vital public issues. That is why the first Amendment protects it.
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. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html] [Emphasis added.]
Conservative talk radio is simply speech, translated into amplified radio frequency energy, amplified. & broadcast. Nothing in that process should remove it from the umbrella of first amendment protection. The fact that the Socialists seek unconstitutionally to censor it should prove to you that the Socialists are unworthy and unqualified to lead & legislate and should be removed from office at the next election.
The same forces seeking to censor talk radio also seek to censor the Internet. If they made conservative newspaper columns and editorials illegal, their violation of the Constititution would be immediately recognized as such. The only difference between news print and the Internet is the means of transmission and reproduction. Much of the content is transmitted both ways. Make no mistake, they’ll outlaw this blog if they can get away with it, just as they seek to outlaw Rush Limbaugh and his colleagues & competitors.
While the Broadcaster Freedom Act has intrinsic merit, it will, in the long run, have little effect because it can be repealed by a simple majority vote. The Constitution is our only real protection; it must be rigorously enforced. Once the Socialists pack the Supreme Court, we will lose our last line of defense.
Now is the time, while we still have our voices; while we can still say, hear, write and read the truth without penalty, to make maximal use of our Constitutional rights. Rise up and raise Hell! This blog post is placed in the public domain; copy it, cross post it, paste it into an email and broadcast it. Go to http://www.congress.org, enter your Zip Code and click the Federal Officials link. Send an email to President Barack Hussein Obama, your Representative & Senators. Tell them you are wise to their corrupt power grab and will not tolerate it. Tell them that you will not, under any circumstances, cast a vote for anyone who supports or implements unconstitutional censorship. Exhort your Rep. to sign the Broadcaster Freedom Act Discharge Petition. Include a link to this blog post by copying and pasting this html code: <a href=”https://snooper.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/unfairness-doctrine-temporary-setback/”>Unfairness Doctrine.</a>
Sign and support these on line petitions; exhort everyone you can influence to sign them.
Bear in mind these words of wisdom:
- “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” [http://www.georgewashingtonsociety.org/Mission.html]
- “I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking.”
By: Woodrow Wilson
Free Speech Quotes
- “There is no more fundamental axiom of American freedom than the familiar statement: In a free country we punish men for crimes they commit but never for the opinions they have.”
By: Harry S. Truman
Free Speech Quotes
- “Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.”
By: Theodore Roosevelt
Free Speech Quotes
- “If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own. If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them free.”
By: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Free Speech Quotes
- “Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection.”
By: Colin Powell
Free Speech Quotes
- “There is tonic in the things that men do not love to hear; and there is damnation in the things that wicked men love to hear. Free speech is to a great people what winds are to oceans and malarial regions, which waft away the elements of disease, and bring new elements of health. And where free speech is stopped miasma is bred, and death comes fast.”
By: Henry Ward Beecher
Free Speech Quotes
- Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us. – William Orville Douglas [http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/topics/free_speech_t001.htm]