Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu on Islamophobia at OIC-CFM 39


Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu on Islamophobia at OIC-CFM 39

An excerpt from a statement
by Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu Secretary General of the Organization of
Islamic Cooperation
at the Thirty-Ninth Session of the Council of
Foreign Ministers of OIC Member States Date: 15/11/2012 –

[All emphasis and links added.]





Islamophobia
remains a source of great concern for us. We have, at the
OIC, exerted considerable and dedicated efforts to combat this
phenomenon whose pace has increased recently as shown in the reports of
the OIC Islamophobia Observatory, the last of which is the fifth report
submitted to you. We have raised this issue with political and
religious elites we have met in different parts of the world,
underscoring its dangerous impacts on the prevalence of international
peace and security.
 




Thanks to these efforts, we managed to convince the UN Human Rights
Council, consistent with the eight points I proposed, to adopt the
consensual resolution 16/18 which
includes a genuine condemnation of
the defamation of religions
and discrimination against people on
religious grounds. Paragraph 6 of the resolution provides for the
adoption of measures to criminalize incitement to violence based on
religion or belief. The UN General Assembly adopted the resolution by
consensus under number 66/167.
 




To enhance the chances of these two resolutions being implemented on
the ground, I put forward ‘the Istanbul process’ initiative in July
2011 which reaffirms the two resolutions, followed by a similar
initiative in Washington in December of the same year. A third
initiative will follow in England in the name of the European Union in
December this year. Meanwhile, we are still struggling to overcome the
obstacles preventing the actual implementation of these initiatives.
The adoption of these two consensual resolutions by the UN Human Rights
Council and the General Assembly respectively is indeed a positive
development that gives us the opportunity to concentrate on important
issues away from politicization and polarization. It also gives us the
opportunity to introduce the ‘Istanbul Process’. I am convinced that
the confidence-building efforts exerted in the ‘Istanbul Process’
meeting and approved by international and regional stakeholders will
pave the way for increased confidence and cooperation between all
parties.
 




After the launch of the defamatory film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ which
insults Islam and Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), and the subsequent disorders
which caused many deaths including the killing of the US Ambassador in
Libya, I condemned in the strongest terms the film, the killing of US
officials and the attack on the US Embassy in Cairo, insisting that the
expression of anger and condemnation should not be through killing or
the destruction of property. Moreover, we issued a joint statement with
the European Union, the League of Arab States and the African Union
denouncing strongly the perpetrators of these crimes.

 


Islamophobia

Phobia implies an irrational fear or loathing.
Exactly what is irrational about fearing a war cult which has sent an estimated 270*106  people to
early graves
?  Exactly what is irrational about loathing
a war cult whose doctrine declares
perpetual war against us
, denies the sanctity of our lives & property,
denies our human rights
and imposes the death penalty on us because we do
not join it
?

peace and security

International peace & security are not
threatened by fear & loathing of Islam. Peace and security are not
negatively impacted by factual exposure of the damnable doctrines &
practices of Islam. Peace and security  are threatened by the damnable doctrines of Islam and the
efforts of Muslims to implement those doctrines.

Muslims riot and raise Hell because of their
arrogance, supremacism & triumphalism; roused by the rabid rants of
their Imams at Jumah Salat, not because of anything we utter and
publish.  Take a fresh, close look at FITNA
and what Ban Ki-moon said about it.  The movie is not hate speech
neither is it incitement, it is an exposure of hate speech and
incitement.

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.

 

defamation
of religions

Elimination of the defamation meme from the most
recent UN resolutions was the critical selling point that facilitated
their passage by acclamation.  If the defamation provisions had
remained in the resolutions, tere would have been votes, many of them
against the resolutions.

Take a fresh, close look at how human rights NGOs
praised and celebrated the new resolutions and how I condemned
them.  My analysis is confirmed, Article 19 & Human Rights
First are shown to be willing victims of al-Taqiyya.

Previous resolutions complained bitterly about
associating Islam with terrorism:

L.32/Rev.1 Elimination of all
forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or
belief  Oral
revision not reflected in this version.

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;

————————————————————————————–

7. Expresses deep concern, in this respect, that Islam is frequently
and wrongly

associated with human rights violations and terrorism; [combating
defamation
 / vilification
of Islam
]

Who created the association? Moe did it! The proof
is outlined below the horizontal line with citations to the Qur’an,
hadith, tafsir & Sira.  This
is what they are bitching about; what they seek to outlaw. They want to
persecute me, fine, imprison and decapitate me for revealing these
fatal facts to you.

Web definitions:
a false
accusation
of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of
someone’s words or actions.

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Falsity is a critical element of defamation.
If it ain’t false, it ain’t defamatory.  Exactly what is false in FITNA?
Exactly what is false in the outline of fatal facts below?

defamatory film ‘Innocence of
Muslims

Exactly what part of The Innocence of Muslims
is false?   Here is my documentation of the video:  http://dajjal.posterous.com/innocence-of-muslims-true-or-false-you-be-the

Is terrorism intrinsic to Islam or is it not?
Was Moe a bastard? Neither hadith nor Sira indicate that, is it really
important? His paternity has been a subject of scholarly
speculation.  He did claim, in one hadith, to be Christ’s paternal
half brother.

Did Moe hide under his wife’s skirt? Yes, he did,
its in the Sira.  Did her cousin fake the Qur’an? I doubt it, I
find no evidence for it, but the bit about the gap in revelations is in
the Sira.

Did Moe converse with a donkey? It is in an obscure
book by Ibn kathir and it is found in the Encyclopedia of
Canonical Hadith
.

Was Moe a lecher? Did he put words in the idol’s
mouth to sanction it? Yes, its in the hadith.   Was Moe an
extortioner? Yes, his extortion letters are on record.  Did he
marry a six year old girl?  Yes, its in the hadith and Sira.

Did he have an old lady murdered? Yes, its in the
Sira.  Did he have Kinnana tortured to death? Yes, but not exactly
as depicted.  Its in the Sira.

Did he do it with Miriam in Hafsa’s bed?  Yes,
its in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.  Was Moe queer?
Did he jigger his camels? I don’t know, I did not see it in the movie
and I did not find it in the books.  I bring that up because I
found another analysis of the trailer to which I have added links. It
is included  immediately below.   I find that, on the
whole, the trailer is not false and defamatory, its major conceptual
content is true.

[Note: the file linked here is 141MB. It will be easier to obtain hard
copy from Amazon.  The alternative is to load it once and use the
page numbers in subsequent links to navigate through the pdf.]

http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/139-louis-palme/1166-muslim-rage-over-innocence-of-muslims-film-should-deference-or-factuality-cover-for-defense.html

Thanks to Louis Palme for sending us the following references:

Was the “Innocence of Muslims” video trailer accurate?

Most of us have seen “Innocence of the Muslims” the film trailer that
sparked rioting which resulted in over 50 dead and millions of dollars
of damage.  …

Listed below are the scenes (by time-stamp and theme) along with the
references to Islamic sacred texts that provide support for the
assertions:

3:02 – Muhammad’s father is unknown. (His father died before he was
born, and his mother never raised him.) Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad,
para. 105

Page 68 on pdf 58 mentions marriage & conception of Moe through
death of Abdullah.  I found no
uncertainty about . Moe’s parentage.

http://archive.org/download/IbnIshaq-SiratuRasulAllah-translatorA.Guillaume/IbnIshaq-SiratRasulAllah.pdf#page=58

3:45 – Young Muhammad taking orders from and married to older Khadija –
Ishaq, para. 120


http://archive.org/download/IbnIshaq-SiratuRasulAllah-translatorA.Guillaume/IbnIshaq-SiratRasulAllah.pdf#page=65

4:43 -Muhammad buries his face in Khadija’s garments to determine if
visions are divine or satanic – Ishaq, para. 154


http://archive.org/download/IbnIshaq-SiratuRasulAllah-translatorA.Guillaume/IbnIshaq-SiratRasulAllah.pdf#page=77

5:24 – Khadija’s cousin Waraqa is a Christian scholar who helped
Muhammad – Ishaq, para. 121

pg.  83 on pdf 65


http://archive.org/download/IbnIshaq-SiratuRasulAllah-translatorA.Guillaume/IbnIshaq-SiratRasulAllah.pdf#page=65

5:43 – Muhammad’s revelations stopped when Waraqa died, prompting him
to consider suicide – Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, No. 478

http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/bukhari/060.html#006.060.478

6:27 – Muslims used booty for their income – Quran Surah 48:20


http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora=
48&l=eng&nAya= 20# 48_ 20

See also Book 53 of Sahih Bukhari:  http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/bukhari/053.html#004.053.324

6:35 – “Muhammad is our messenger and the Quran is our constitution.”
— taken from the Muslim Brotherhood oath

Article
Eight
: The Slogan of the Hamas

Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its
Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most
sublime belief.”

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html

7:19 – Muhammad given special privileges regarding women and marriage –
Quran Surah 33:37-38

http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora=
33&l=eng&nAya= 37# 33_ 37

8:37 – Muhammad is linked to Allah in authority and worship – Quran
Surahs 3:32, 4:80, 8:20, 9:71, 24:47, 24:54, 47:33, 61:11, 64:8. 64:12,
and many others

Use link above, then navigation tools at the top of the page to select
other Surahs and ayat.

9:11 – Abu Bakr gives his nine-year-old Aisha in marriage to
fifty-five-year-old Muhammad — Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 5, No. 234

http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/bukhari/058.html#005.058.234

9:27 – Muhammad and Omar are “gay.” (With nineteen wives and
concubines, Muhammad had very few children and no male heirs.)
References to bizarre sexual behavior can be found in Sahih al-Bukhari,
Book 4, No. 143, Sahih al-Bukhari, No. 2393, and Sahih Muslim, Nos.
3663 and 3674. The story about Omar apparently comes from this Shiite
cleric’s speech: http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2012/06/london-based-shiite-cleric-yasser-al.html

http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/bukhari/004.html#001.004.143

I do not find No.2393 in Khan’s translation, there is nothing sexual in
Aisha’ Bewley’s 2393. Sahih Muslim 2393 is also innocent. Muslim
10.3663 is innocent, likewise 10.3674.

11:15 – An elderly woman, Umm Qirfa, is torn in two by two camels –
Ishaq, para. 980


http://archive.org/download/IbnIshaq-SiratuRasulAllah-translatorA.Guillaume/IbnIshaq-SiratRasulAllah.pdf#page=357

11:32 – “Whoever refuses to follow Islam has only two choices – pay
extortion or die.” – Quran Surah 9:29

http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora=
9&l=eng&nAya= 29# 9_ 29

12:38 – Torture of Kinana bin al-Rabi (a Jew) in front of his wife,
Safiya, who Muhammad later raped – Ishaq, paras. 764 – 767


http://archive.org/download/IbnIshaq-SiratuRasulAllah-translatorA.Guillaume/IbnIshaq-SiratRasulAllah.pdf#page=282

13:10 – Fight between Muhammad and two of his wives – Hafsa and Aisha –
when he is caught in bed with Hafsa’s Coptic slave Maryah after he had
promised not to sleep with her. This is the subject of Quran Surah 66.

http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora=
66&l=eng&nAya= 1# 66_ 1

13:43 – “Every non-Muslim is an infidel; their land, women and children
are our spoils.” – Ishaq, para. 484


http://archive.org/download/IbnIshaq-SiratuRasulAllah-translatorA.Guillaume/IbnIshaq-SiratRasulAllah.pdf#page=188

http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora=
8&l=eng&nAya= 67# 8_ 67

http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora=
33&l=eng&nAya= 26# 33_ 26

http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/muslim/019.html#019.4327

 

The Innocent Prophet

Imran Firasat’s upcoming video is sure to outrage
Muslims. Here is the trailer. Note: Firasat has juxtaposed Chapter
& Verse. [Big deal.] The military intelligence offices of the U.S.
& Canadian governments have been seeking information about this
video, presumably because they expect it to influence enemy activity
against our forces in the field.

They should learn tha fatal facts of Islam herein
referenced and wise up to the fact that Islamic violence is doctrine
driven, not grievance driven.

Did the Almighty Creator select as his final Prophet
and Messenger an unrepentant pederast, lecher, false prophet, murderer
and genocidal warlord?  Or is Islam the world’s most successful
con game?

If Moe was a false prophet and Islam is a con game;
a continuing criminal enterprise guilty of war crimes against humanity,
then why in Hell should warning the world about it be a criminal
offense?

If Moe was a true Prophet, Allah is the Almighty
Creator and Islam is true, a perfect religion innocent of offensive,
genocidal & terrorist conquest then post proof in a comment: refute
each and every fatal fact presented and documented below the horizontal
line.  Good luck with that.


Advertisements

November 25, 2012 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Ad Hoc Cmte: War on Free Speech


The UN’s war on freedom of expression is waged in
two parallel plains: resolutions and international covenants.  The
former have no enforcement mechanism; the latter have the force of
international law binding on signatories.   On the covenant plain,
the weapon is the Ad Hoc Cmte. and the mechanism is ICERD.  The
OIC
and its allies seek to insert Islam’s blasphemy laws into ICERD through
a binding protocol which would establish new norms criminalizing
criticism of Islam.

This plain of conflict is under reported and little
known.  the action takes place below the radar. Unfortunately, it
is the most dangerous to our cherished liberty because its outcome will
have the force of international law.

The committee holds two ten day sessions each
year.  Those sessions
have been marked by conflict which has resulted in narrowing the scope
of its deliberations, excluding Islamophobia.  This resolution is
an
expression of frustration and demand for results.

Once ICERD is amended to criminalize criticism of
Islam, the
creators of Fitna, Innocence of Muslims and the Motoons could be
persecuted in national and international courts and sentenced to prison
or death.

The HRC and GA resolutions give immoral support to
national
blasphemy laws used to persecute indigenous Christians in Indonesia
& Pakistan, but they have no teeth. The mission of the Ad Hoc
Committee has venomous fangs.

http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/10556ad_hoc_committee.pdf

2lStSession of the Human Rights Council

Agenda Item 9

Elaboration of international complementary standards to the
lnternational

Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

 

Recalling its decision 31103 of 8
December 2006, in which it decided to establish, in accordance

with the provisions of paragraph 199 of the Durban Declaration and
Programme of Action, the

Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of
Complementary

Standards, with a mandate to elaborate, as a matter of priority and
necessity, complementary

standards in the form of either a convention or additional protocol(s)
to the lnternational

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
filling the existing gaps in

the Convention and also providing
new normative standards aimed at combating all forms of


contemporary racism, including
incitement to racial and religious hatred
,(NHRCiResll0;30)

normative standards

The best way to translate this code phrase is to
provide examples from Shari’ah: Reliance of the Traveller, O8.7, which
lists 20 acts entailing apostasy, which carries the death
penalty.  The provisions of O8.7 are applied to dhimmis through O11.10

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

What is impermissible?

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

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

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

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

-16- to
revile the religion of Islam
;

incitement to racial and religious hatred

Translation of this code phrase is best accomplished
by reference to a concrete example: Fitna,
the short video by Geert Wilders which juxtaposed verses from the
Qur’an & hadith with the rabid rants of Imams and their violent
consequences.     Fitna exposed incitement, it did not
incite.  Observe what the Secretary General of the UN said about
it.

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.”

Ban’s spokesman used similar terms to describe Innocence
of Muslims
:

He
condemns the
hateful film that appears to have been deliberately designed to sow
bigotry and bloodshed.

The clear intention is to criminalize all criticism
of Islam.  The condemned videos do not incite violence, they
expose incitement.  Linking Islam to incitement to violence
constitutes reviling Islam, which carries the death penalty.  By
that standard, I could be persecuted, fined and imprisoned for exposing
the fact that the practice of Islam entails violence and terrorism,
like this:

Islam is inseverable, 2:85 condemns selectivity; Muslims must accept the
entire package, including genocidal, terrorist conquest.
Religious violence & terrorism are incited in the Qur’an (3:151, 8:12, 39, 57, 59, 60, 65, 67, 9:5, 29, 111, 120, 123, 33:26, 47:4, 49:1559:2, 59:13 & 61:10), in hadith (Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, 4.52.177, 1.7.331 & 4.52.220, Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2635, 23.3455 & 14.2497), and Shari’ah (Reliance of the Traveller:
O9.0-9 & Hedaya Vol. 2, pg 140-230).

Under the standards demanded by the OIC, Arab
League, Non-Aligned Group and European Union, this blog post would be
illegal because of the proceeding paragraph.

Underlining the imperative need for the
Ad Hoc Committee to achieve its mandate (NHRCI

13118 updated)

I. Decides that the Ad Hoc
Committee shall convene its fifth session from 13 to 24 May


2013; (AIHRCI 13118
updated),

l.(bis) Takes note of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Human
Rights

Council on the Elaboration of lnternational Complementary Standards to
the

lnternational Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination,

2. Invites the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Ad Hoc Committee to

hold informal consultations, within existing resources, with
regional and

political coordinators during the inter-sessional period between the
fourth

and fifth sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee, with the aim to

prepare the fifth session and collect concrete proposals for

discussion on the topics of xenophobia, establishment, designation or

maintaining of national mechanisms with competencies to protect against
and

prevent all forms &-and manifestations of racism, racial
discrimination,

xenophobia and related intolerance; and procedural gaps with regard to

the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination, in accordance with its mandate; NEW (AIHRCl21159)

The Cmte.’s fourth session produced a 47 page report :

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session21/A-HRC-21-59_en.pdf

September 20, 2012 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Human Rights First: Wrong about Abigail Esman’s Assessment of HRC 16/18


http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/01/10/abigail-esman-gets-it-wrong-on-free-speech/

Having presented a link to the article, I will post only a few paragraphs that bear directly on the issue. Links in the quotes are original, the highlighting is mine.

In the first paragraph, the author suggests that “incitement to imminent violence” – an act that the resolution recommends be criminalized – could mean anything. This is a harmful misconception that serves as a crux of the opposition to this resolution.

The author doesn’t directly dispute a quote from a recent Human Rights First blog on Myth vs. Reality on US Engagement with Islamic States that “the only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to ‘imminent violence,’ which is in accordance with US law.” Yet at the same time the author states that opponents of the resolution “rightly find [this measure] distressing.” How could one be distressed by a provision that recommends the criminalization of only those instances of incitement that are considered criminal under the U.S. Constitution, the highest standard of free speech in the world?

As the UN documents are fond of saying, read “inter alia”. HRC RES 16/18 is based on UN standards, not Constitutional standards.  “Incitement to imminent violence” means what they want it to mean, not what we want it to mean. Islam practices Orwellian double speak.

Through her examples, the author seems to indicate that speech could be considered “incitement to imminent violence” simply because an individual or group of individuals react violently to it. This is an incorrect understanding of the legal concept of “incitement” as it is used in U.S. law, the standard on which this part of the resolution was based.

Where in the resolution does it explicitly define the meaning of incitement?  Nowhere!!  The definition is found elsewhere, in the expressions of the Secretary General of the OIC and the Secretary General of the United Nations.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G11/127/27/PDF/G1112727.pdf?OpenElement

2. Expresses its concern that 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 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, audio-visual or
electronic media or any other means;

5. Notes the speech given by Secretary-General of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference at the fifteenth session of the Human Rights Council, and draws on his
call on States to take the following actions to foster a domestic environment of religious
tolerance, peace and respect, by:
(f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on
religion or belief; [http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/8864sggenevaoic.pdf#page=3]

In the first page of Ishanoglu’s address to the HRC, we discover something important: his definition of incitement to violence includes announcing intent to burn the Koran.

     The new session of Council is also coincident with regrettable events that are 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 Burn a Koran Day.

On the next page, Ishanoglu lists campaigns that incite hatred,  including Burn a Koran Day, and informs us that they threaten global peace & security.  In the short form:  they incite violence.

In this regard all xenophobic campaigns of fear mongering and discriminatory
measures – both in policy md practice – which restrict, prohibit or discriminate against of any
religion such as ban on the construction 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.

Lets clarify the issue of “clear and present danger to peace”; in essence: violence, by breaking down the conjunctive clause.

  • Incitement to violence:
    • fear mongering
    • discriminatory
    • ban minarets
    • incite hatred
    • Burn a koran Day
  • other discriminatory measures

Now that it is clear that discrimination is equated with incitement, lets zero in on that last clause: other discriminatory measures: what, exactly, does this category include?  To find out, we turn to the most recent annual Islamophobia Report.

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=6

Other instances of Islamophobia in the US recorded in the report include the agenda of the Tea
Party Movement, which openly advocated hatred against Muslims, the proposed “ban on Sharia”
which succeeded within the State of Oklahoma, and the congressional hearings on the
“radicalization of the American Muslim Community” initiated by Rep. Peter King, Chairman of
the US House Committee on Homeland Security. The hearings launched a debate built on
prejudiced and biased premises that Muslims were potential terrorists who, in his opinion,
ostensibly refused to cooperate with the Nation’s “war on terror”. Such a debate, regardless of
the outcome, would contribute to a climate of fear and distrust towards the Muslim community.

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=10

The United States of America – a country long admired for its embracement of diversity –
recorded the highest intensity of hostility and prejudice towards Muslims during the period
under review. The infamous “Burn A Quran Day” by a hitherto non-entity Florida Pastor Terry
Jones and his subsequent actions at hate mongering, the Congressional hearings by the
Chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security on the
“radicalization of American Muslims” in Washington DC on March 11, 2011 and his statement
that “We (the US) are under siege by Muslim terrorists”1 along with other anti Muslim events,
were ominous signs of Islamophobia taking roots in the USA. The fact that such incidents cast a
shadow on the US image of tolerance frustrating the optimism generated, throughout the Muslim
world, by President Obama’s speech in Cairo in June 2009, may not be discounted.
  • Tea Party Platform
  • Qur’an burning
  • Radicalization Hearings

Lets gild the lilly by bringing in two more important sources which confirm the obvious, from the initial meeting of the Istanbul Process .

OIC Journal June-August ’11
http://issuu.com/oic-journal/docs/journal_issue18_english?mode=window&pageNumber=7
Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, US Representative to the Human Rights Council,

In response to OIC Journal query on defining what would
constitute incitement to hate, she clarified that in the US there
is a single case where freedom of expression can be restricted
or prohibited by the State, and that is when “incitement to
eminent violence”.

In this context, she pointed out that the President, the
Secretary of State and several public officials went out on a
limb to publically condemn ‘Burn the Quran Day’ to show
that such abominable acts are not accepted. “When you have
the President, the Secretary of State and public figures jointly
condemning that, it will be more effective than throwing
that pastor in jail. I believe the same is true for the hateful
cartoons (of the Prophet). We should all be joining together
in conveying our disgust with such intolerance.”

Ambassador Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative
of Pakistan on behalf of the OIC at the HRC, told the OIC
Journal that both sides – the OIC countries and the western
countries – made important concessions to each other to
reach a compromise on the resolution. What is important for
the OIC point of view is that it would not compromise on
three things: anything against the Quran, anything against the
Prophet (PBUH), and anything against Muslim community
in terms of discrimination.

According to our HRC Ambassador, Burn the Qur’an Day was abominable intolerance.   According to Pakistan’s Ambassador, the OIC will not compromise on anything against the Qur’an or Moe.

Now it is time to go right to the top, to obtain the working definition of incitement to violence from  the Secretary General of the United Nations.

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, the short documentary by Geert Wilders, combining verses from the Qur’an & hadith with sermons from Friday prayers and images of the ensuing violence, is incitement to violence.  In reality, Fitna exposes incitement, it does not constitute incitement.  Having examined the operative definition of incitement, lets take a look at the Islamic law behind the whole operation.

What Moe preached is law, what he practiced is exemplary, together, his preaching and practice form the basis of Islamic law.  Moe had critics murdered.  Because of that exemplary conduct, the penalty for criticizing Islam is death.

  • 08.1 When a person who has reached puberty
    and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he
    deserves to be killed.
  • 08.7 (0: Among the things that entail apostasy
    from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

    • (4) to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah
      bless him and give him peace);
    • (5) to deny the existence of Allah, His beginningless
      eternality, His endless eternaIity, or to
      deny any of His attributes which the consensus of
      Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: vI);
    • (6) to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His
      command, His interdiction, His promise, or His
      threat;
    • (7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything
      which by scholarly consensus (def: b7)
      belong
    • (15) to hold that any of Allah’s messengers
      or prophets are liars, or to deny their bcing sent;
      (n: ‘Ala’ ai-Din ‘Abidin adds the following:
    • (16) to revile the religion of Islam;
      (17) to believe that things in themselves or
      by their own nature have any causal influence
      independent of the will of Allah;
    • (18) to deny the existence of angels or jinn
      (def: w22), or the heavens;
    • (19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the
      Sacred Law;
      (20) or to deny that Allah intended the
      Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him
      peace) to be the religion followed by the entire
      world (dis: w4.3–4) (al-Hadiyya al-‘Ala’iyya (y4),
      423-24).)
  • 011. IO The agreement is also violated (A: with
    respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated
    that any of the following things break it, and
    one of the suhjects does so anyway. though if the
    state has not stipulated that these break the agreement,
    then they do not; namely, if one of the subject
    people:

    • (5) or mentions something impermissible
      about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and
      give him peace), or Islam.
  • 011.11 When a subject’s agreement with the state
    has been viOlated, the caliph chooses between the
    four alternatives mentioned above in connection
    with prisoners of war (09.14).
  • O9.14  When an adult male is taken captive, the
    caliph (def: 025) considers the interests (0: of
    Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the
    prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying
    anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for
    money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
    If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (0: before
    the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives)
    then he may not be killed, and one of the other
    three alternatives is chosen.

The OIC seeks to prevent & punish every negative utterance about Islam. Their current tactic is to conflate criticism with incitement, proscribing the latter.
The fourth Islamophobia Report hints at the next step.

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=16

The restraint was short lived and on 20 March 2011 the controversial Florida Pastor Terry
Jones oversaw24 the burning of a copy of the Koran, carried out by Pastor Wayne Sapp, in his
small church. The incident was presented as a trial of the book in which the Koran was found
“guilty” and “executed”. The event was open to the public. Fewer than 30 people attended but
widespread media coverage attracted by the event somewhat served the nefarious designs and
the extremist philosophy behind the outrageous act.

After the unfortunate incident, the OIC Secretary General issued a statement expressing his deep
disappointment, and warned against unforeseen and volatile consequences of such outrageous
and irresponsible acts that could hurt the deep seated religious sentiments of over 1.5 billion
Muslims around the world. He characterized the unfortunate incident as “the worst example of
extremism” that the international community had been consistent in condemning.

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=36

Approaches like applying the ‘test of consequences’ were useful and would have to be
explored/refined further in an objective fashion towards evolving a consensus with
regard to effectively addressing the matter; and

 As regards the issue of freedom of opinion and expression, the OIC could with the views
of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and expression with regard to making “very
few exceptions” but the contours of such exceptions would have to be identified. OIC
believed that unfortunate and outrageous episodes like the caricatures and the burning of
holy Quran merited the grant of such exceptions;

For those too stupid or indolent to connect the dots: if the resolution had been implemented a year ago, Pastors Jones & Sapp would be  persecuted criminally & sued civil court for the “consequences” of their trial and execution of the Qur’an.  Holding them responsible for the acts of a Muslim rabble roused by kutbah at Jumah Salat is not just, nor is it rational.  Jones & Sapp did not incite anyone to violence. Asian Imams did.

It becomes obvious that the plan is to compel self-censorship through legal intimidation.  It is equally obvious that Human Rights first is so heavily invested in the Istanbul Process that they are blinded to objective factual reality.

January 11, 2012 Posted by | free speech, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | 2 Comments

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

United Nations & Islam–Genocide Incorporated


The General Assembly uttered and published A/66/153 (Part I), titled: Establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region
of the Middle East.

After an introduction and observations consisting of six paragraphs, the document concludes with responses from several states. Three of those are important. I will return to the observations after commenting on these.

Cuba exposes the top level issue:

The acquisition of nuclear capability by  Israel represents  a threat to the
security of the neighbouring States and to peace in the region, which is already in
turmoil. The statements made by the Israeli Prime Minister on 12 December 2006,
admitting that Israel is a nuclear-weapon State, are a source of great concern.

The focus of the U.N. campaign for a nuclear free Mid East is on Israel.  Only Japan mentioned Iran’s nuclear weapons program.  Its not what you do, its who you are and who your allies are.

Egypt piles on:

The main impediment to establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the
Middle East has been Israel. Egypt notes with grave concern that Israel remains the
sole country in the Middle East not to  adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.

If Israel had not bombed Iraq’s reactor, would they be bitching about Saddam’s nuclear weapons program?  They are gravely concerned that only Israel has nukes. Once Iran obtains them, their concern will fade away.

Syria piles on:

The Syrian Arab Republic expresses its grave concern that Israel’s refusal to
accede to the Treaty, despite numerous calls and international resolutions urging it
to do so, remains the fundamental obstacle to ridding the Middle East of nuclear
weapons.

Iran signed the treaty and violates it with impunity; nobody gives a damn about that. Its all about Israel. Then there is the little matter of the a reactor project in which North Korea and Syria were partners. Only Israel was concerned about that reactor and bombed it.  Syria has not permitted effective analysis of the site.

Pandora’s box is open. The lid is off, the demons are loose; they can not be returned to the box. Hitler’s regime was working on the A bomb. The scientists who worked on it came over to our side, resulting in an early end to the war in the Pacific, saving millions of lives.

Communists who infiltrated our government transmitted vital information to Russia and now the demons are loose.  No treaty is worth the paper it is printed on. Tyrants Hellbent on expanding their empires to global scope will not adhere to treaties. They will not disarm. They can not be disarmed short of all out war.

Dreams of nuclear free zones and a nuclear free world are the ultimate insanity. Disarmament means that only those most inclined to aggression will have weapons.  It means that their victims will be unable to mount an effective defense. Disarmament is the predator’s fondest dream: a guarantee of easy prey.

Now is the time to expose and dissect the real agenda, which is exposed in ¶6 of the Observations.

6. The Secretary-General reaffirms the urgent need for a just and lasting solution
to the Arab-Israeli conflict. He believes that it is in the best interest of both parties
to achieve an end to the conflict, a resolution of all final status issues — including
Jerusalem, borders, refugees and security — and the emergence of a sovereign,
ndependent, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side-by-side in peace
and security with Israel. He calls for the implementation of all relevant resolutions
of the Security Council, in particular resolutions 1850 (2008) and 1860 (2009). The
Secretary-General welcomes the efforts of the United States to facilitate political
progress between Israelis and Palestinians.  He appeals to the parties to return to
negotiations without preconditions and without delay and to discuss all core issues
with a view to a final resolution of the conflict. He will continue to work towards
that end with the Quartet. The Secretary-General emphasizes the importance of any
peace settlement to be comprehensive and reiterates the importance of the Arab
Peace Initiative in this regard. He calls upon all concerned parties within and
outside the region to adopt a constructive  attitude with a view to creating stable
security conditions and an eventual settlement that  would facilitate the process of
establishing a zone free of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. The SecretaryGeneral
reiterates the continued readiness of the United Nations to provide any
assistance deemed helpful in this regard.

 

The Litany of lies:

Arab-Israeli conflict

There is no conflict; there is an ongoing genocide. The 1400 year timescale makes this fact difficult to detect. Moe plagiarized Hebrew scripture and co-opted Hebrew prophets in hopes of attracting Jews to his new war cult. His ruse was detected and rejected, so Moe set out to punish the Jews for rejecting his lies.

  • Attack on B. Qaynuqa
  • Attack on B. Qurayza
  • Attack on B. al-Mustaliq
  • Expedition to Khaybar
  • The Affair of Fadak
  • Banu Nadir.

According to the Qur’an, Allah commanded Muslims to wage war against Jews. That imperative includes war against Christians & Zoroastrians; anyone with a scriptural religion. It is contained in Surah At-Taubah 29; read it and curse Islam.

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.

Does it really mean that?

“Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand.” [Tafsir Ibn Kathir]

Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, for, otherwise, they would have believed in the Prophet (s), and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, such as wine, nor do they practise the religion of truth, the firm one, the one that abrogated other religions, namely, the religion of Islam — from among of those who (min, ‘from’, explains [the previous] alladhīna, ‘those who’) have been given the Scripture, namely, the Jews and the Christians, until they pay the jizya tribute, the annual tax imposed them, readily (‘an yadin is a circumstantial qualifier, meaning, ‘compliantly’, or ‘by their own hands’, not delegating it [to others to pay]), being subdued, [being made] submissive and compliant to the authority of Islam. [Tafsir al-Jalalayn]

Moe confirmed it.

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.”

It is codified in Shari’ah..

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9.29),…


Allah had something more to say, something very revealing: that he would always send someone to torment and humiliate the Jews. Who might he send?

7:167. And (remember) when your Lord declared that He would certainly keep on sending against them (i.e. the Jews), till the Day of Resurrection, those who would afflict them with a humiliating torment. Verily, your Lord is Quick in Retribution (for the disobedient, wicked) and certainly He is Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful (for the obedient and those who beg Allâh’s Forgiveness).

In the end, he will send the Muslims, led by Jesus Christ. Nobody else will tell you about this; I will because I do not give a damn who is offended.

…”In the future, the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa, son of Mary, will kill the Jews. This will occur just before the end of this world.”…[Tafsir Ibn Kathir]

Four more ahadith are relevant to this issue. The first of these is local to the Hijaz, but has global implications, which I have highlighted.  The first two display Moe’s intent as well as his arrogance. The third confirms genocidal intent: the gates of Paradise will not swing open until they kill the last Jew.  The fourth shows how caliph Umar followed up on the others.   Umar was one of the four “rightly guided caliphs”, the one who conquered Israel in 638.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe.You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.”

Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2477
Narrated Ibn Hawalah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: It will turn out that you will be armed troops, one is Syria, one in the Yemen and one in Iraq. Ibn Hawalah said: Choose for me, Apostle of Allah, if I reach that time. He replied: Go to Syria, for it is Allah’s chosen land, to which his best servants will be gathered but if you are unwilling, go to your Yemen, and draw water from your tanks, for Allah has on my account taken special charge of Syria and its people.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:
‘Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. …  Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”

Ban Ki-moon, I call you out: are you an ignorant damned fool or a traitor to the human race?  Which of these fatal facts were you unaware of?  Which of these fatal facts do you not comprehend?  Muslims were commanded to conquer the entire world, including Israel. Muslims were promised that all land they conquered would always remain under their control.  Muslims can not tolerate the existence of Israel because it proves Allah to be an impotent idol whose threat and promise are void.  Islam’s urge to reconquer Israel can not end while there are living Muslims on the face of the earth. Do you still deny this fatal fact?  If so, then you are, indeed a traitor to the human race.

end to the conflict

There is no conflict; there is only the Islamic imperative of genocidal conquest which can not end while Muslims remain alive on the face of the earth.

resolution of all final status issues

There is only one issue: the existence of Israel.  While Israel exists, Muslims can never be satisfied. Nothing less than the total destruction of Israel and genocide of the Jews can satisfy Islam.

State of Palestine

Trans-Jordan: the state of Palestine. One is enough!!! Its creation consumed 70% of the mandate which was to be restored to the Jews as their homeland. Israel does not owe Falestinians any more land beyond mass graves.

side-by-side

They demand a state in place of, not beside Israel. Read the Charter of HAMAS and the PLO Charter.

negotiations

What is there to negotiate with an ideology which demands genocide and politicide?  What part of existential do you not comprehend?!

without preconditions

  • Jerusalem
  • borders
  • refugees
  • security
  • and the emergence of a State of Palestine
    • sovereign
    • independent
    • contiguous
    • viable

Am I the only one who can perceive the obvious hypocrisy?  First he lists the preconditions, then he denies them.  We are not dealing with an ignorant fool, we are dealing with an arrogant traitor who perceives us as too stupid and indolent to recognize objective factual reality.

final resolution

  •     Translation: “final solution”. Obvious meaning: genocide.
    • Moe
    • Hitler
    • Ban Ki-moon
  • Did someone once say “Never again!”? It sure was not Ban Ki -Moon.

Arab Peace Initiative

“First you surrender, then we negotiate.”  No preconditions, remember?

August 22, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , | Leave a comment

Clinton: Ways to Fight Religious Intolerance


A Bloomberg article by Nicole Gaouette exemplifies the fine art of turning a press conference into “news” without scratching the surface to discover relevant facts.  Use the link below to read the entire article, I am taking exemplary excerpts out of context.

Clinton Works With Allies on Ways to Fight Religious Intolerance

By Nicole Gaouette – Jul 15, 2011

The U.S. and allies are seeking better responses to acts of religious intolerance such as burnings of the Koran and cartoons that mock theProphet Muhammad.

Define “acts of religious intolerance”.  How does burning a Koran after a four hour mock trial equate to burning churches with the congregants inside?   How do the Motoons equate to telling Christians to leave their homes or die?

Exactly why should we tolerate intolerance?  Islam curses us, lets tolerate it.

  • 2:89…So let the Curse of Allâh be on the disbelievers.
  • 2:159. Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences and the guidance, which We have sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allâh and cursed by the cursers.
  • 2:161. Verily, those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers, it is they on whom is the Curse of Allâh and of the angels and of mankind, combined.
  • 98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur’ân and Prophet Muhammad ()) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

Exactly why should we tolerate incitement & incentivization of violence against us?  Islam declares war on us, lets tolerate it.

  • 8:60. And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allâh and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allâh does know. And whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allâh shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly.
  • 8:65. O Prophet (Muhammad )! Urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast persons amongst you, they will overcome two hundred, and if there be a hundred steadfast persons they will overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are people who do not understand.
  • 8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
  • 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
  • 9:120. 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

    9:121. Nor do they spend anything (in Allâh’s Cause) – small or great – nor cross a valley, but is written to their credit, that Allâh may recompense them with the best of what they used to do (i.e. Allâh will reward their good deeds according to the reward of their best deeds which they did in the most perfect manner).

Why stop with toleration; lets all convert to a “great religion” that rewards any step taken to injure or enrage a disbeliever.

Why should there be any governmental response to Koran burning or cartoons?  Aren’t there some more pressing and substantive problems requiring immediate attention?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed with religious and political leaders today in Istanbul how to build on a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution passed March 24, which calls for promoting tolerance and respect for diversity of beliefs, without restricting legitimate free speech.

Those who write about UN resolutions would do well to read them before reaching for their keyboards.

1. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of derogatory
stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or
beliefs, 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 its concern that 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 this resolution, 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, audio-visual or
electronic media or any other means;

(f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on
religion or belief;

Exactly what do those high sounding, apparently innocuous phrases mean?  What is their real world application?  For the answer, we must turn to the immortal words of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who condemned Fitna as “hate speech” & “incitement”, declaring that Geert Wilders had no right to express it.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

According to the Secretary General, there is no justification for demonstrating the nexus between Islamic doctrine and practice.  This is the equivalent of an organization of snakes lobbying to prohibit lifting rocks.

But all the pressure is off, the HRC has turned a new leaf, abandoning the campaign to criminalize criticism of Islam.  Yeah, right.  Pakistan’s U.N. Ambassador had remarks on the resolution March 24, 2011.  I took it apart in detail here:  http://islamexposed.blogspot.com/2011/04/oic-islamic-hypocrisy-on-parade.html

The new resolution supplements & confirms but does not supplant earlier resolutions neither does it preclude further resolutions of the same kind.

Mr. President: this resolution addresses a number of issues1 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.2 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 consensus3 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 incitement4 and discrimination and incitement to hatred5 and violence6 based on religion or belief.

Amb. Akhram was not the only one to speak to this issue. He was joined by the Secretary General of the OIC.

OIC has a principled postition 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 tbe workshops on incitement to hatred under
the Durban mandate constitute and important avenue for a
synthesis  aimed at bridging the divergence of views.
http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/9429hrc16sessionoic.pdf  page 9

Human rights belong to individual humans, not to collectives neither to institutions.  Is there a right to be completely shielded from all criticism & questioning?  Is there an absolute right to have anyone who criticizes your cherished beliefs thrown into prison?

I have a clue for you; a clue which few others will share. Reliance of the Traveller is the handbook of Shaffi’ite fiqh, the most widely accepted version of Shari’ah. It imposes the death penalty for apostasy, which it defines with a list of twenty acts & attitudes.

  • O8.1

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

    O8.2

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

  • O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

    (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are: …

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

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

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

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

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

  • -16- to revile the religion of Islam

Now what is it the OIC & HRC seek to criminalize?

aiming to implement responses to defamation that includes education, government outreach and dialogue rather than restrictive measures.

They want to substitute indoctrination for education.  “Dialogue”: form over substance. Do any of those dialogues include detailed discussion of the Koran verses quoted above, Ibn Kathir’s exegesis of them or Muhammad’s excellent example of how to implement them?  Just one did, March 20, in Florida, the UN & Department of State condemn the outcome of that four hour dialogue, which was conducted in Arabic.

“Together, we have begun to address the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression,” Clinton said today.

What false divide?  Islam and the HRC declare that Islam is a protected person, to be shielded from all criticism, which is to be criminalized; its perpetrators to be punished by fines and imprisonment.   Ban Ki-Moon denied  Wilders’ right to publish Fitna.  A Dutch panel of jurists reached a different conclusion.

She noted that even as countries in the Middle East and North Africa make the “inspiring” transition to democracy, there has also been a rise in ethnic and religious intolerance.

Secretary of State Clinton draws inspiration from strange places and events; from bloody insurrection which exchanges one tyrant for another.  There is no democracy in Islam and can be none because only Allah and his regent, followed by the latter’s successors, have the right to rule.

Clinton said the Human Rights Council’s resolution “calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.”

How do you define & measure incitement?  What did Ban say about Fitna?  Who is to gainsay his definition & metrication?  Fitna is not incitement, it exposes incitement. Politicians are too dishonest to acknowledge the difference.

In the United States, Clinton said, “we have seen how the incendiary actions of just a very few people” can create “wide ripples of intolerance.”

How is anyone to make sense of such ambiguous and amorphous expressions?  My first response is to assume that “incendiary actions” is a reference  to  9/11/01; the “very few” to the “Magnificent 19”  and the “wide ripples of intolerance” is a reference to increased awareness of and public expression about the damnable doctrines & practices of Islam.   They could as easily be applied to the Koran burning and riots in Pakistan.

…protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor,” she said.

Is there a right to worship as they choose, when war is their cheif sacrament?  How is it possible that there is a right to fight disbelievers until they are subjugated?  How is it possible that there is a right to fight disbelievers until only Allah is worshiped?   How is it possible that there is a right to make “great slaughter”; to take “any step” to “injure” or “raise the anger of” disbelievers?

Obedience to Allah and emulation of Muhammad  are foundational to and inseverable from the practice of Islam.  What do believers do? C;inton has no clue; I have one for her.

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

What do believers do? They wage war and kill disbelievers; war is a primary sacrament of Islam. Am I cherry picking?

  • 49:15. Only those are the believers who have believed in Allâh and His Messenger, and afterward doubt not but strive with their wealth and their lives for the Cause of Allâh. Those! They are the truthful.

Of course, that must be an anachronism. Yeah, right.

  • Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526

    Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

    The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.

Jihad continues until the last day. Exactly what is this holy sacrament of Islam?

  • O9.0: Jihad

    (O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.

  • O9.1
  • If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. 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. …

Does any sane person desire to promote tolerance of a war cult which seeks to destroy or enslave and dominate us?  Does any sane person advocate a right to wage war against us, to kill us, seize our property, rape our widows and sell our orphans into slavery?   For the deluded fools who believe that it is possible to practice Islam peacefully, I present one more hadith. Get a clue, for Chrissake.

  • Sunun 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.

Jihad is war; their “original religion”.  Commerce & agriculture are alternatives to jihad: it iss economic; its mission is mercenary. If Muslims abandon it they will be cursed until they resume it.  If you can not comprehend this clue, you are probably too stupid to live, do the world a service by removing yourself from the gene pool.

July 17, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, Uncategorized | , , , , | Leave a comment

Mooned Again


The News Mail reports that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has demanded the lifting of Israel’s blockade of Gaza.
A few choice quotes:

“Everything must be done to prevent another incident of this kind,”
“All concerned should act with a sense of care and responsibility, and in accordance with international law.”

Why did you allow the first incident?  Why did you not send diplomats to stop the launch of the flotilla?  Why did you fail to send international forces to turn those boats back?

International law says that Israel has a right to enforce a blockade against her belligerent enemies.  Sending that flotilla was an act of provocation, by design; the obvious intent was to obtain a propaganda advantage against Israel.  Israel warned the flotilla, directing them to turn back or  divert to a port for inspection.  Instead of complying, the provocateurs refused to divert and persisted in their attempt to break the blockade.

The Secretary General’s office has a transcript, which I have gleaned for these quotes.

At this sensitive time, it is essential to avoid provocations.

It was essential to avoid provocations at the time of the flotilla’s launching. You stood by wringing your hands.

This tragedy only highlights the serious underlying problem. The long-running closure imposed on the Gaza Strip is counter-productive, unsustainable and wrong. It punishes innocent civilians. It must be lifted by the Israeli authorities immediately.

Israel’s blockade is not the problem. The problem is Islam’s demonic demand for politicide & genocide.  Islam will never tolerate the existence of Israel.  Her recovery of a tiny fragment of her ancient patrimony proves Allah to be an impotent idol. No Muslim can accept that.  That blockade is the only tool Israel has to slow the flow of weapons and the raw materials for making them, into Gaza.

Speaking more broadly, we must advance the proximity talks facilitated by the United States. Despite the latest developments, it is vital for the talks to continue.

No amount of talking will solve the basic problem: Islamic  intolerance and aggression.  There are only two possible solutions, choose one.

  1. Break the faith of the Muslims, cause them to abandon Islam.
  2. Move them beyond rocket range of Israel.  Hell might be far enough.
This week’s events underscore the urgency of real progress in the Middle East peace process. I commend President Abbas’s courageous decision to continue, and Arab partners for their flexibility.

Courageous decision to do what?  To make outrageous, escalating demands without ever meeting any of  Fallestine’s existing commitments.  They still inculcate hatred in their children.  They still broadcast incitement  in their mass media. They still glorify terrorists.  The only thing any reasonable person has to say to them is “go to Hell”.   As long as they want genocide and politicide, there will be no peace.

Intelligent and rational people look beneath the surface, for the actual roots of this existential conflict.  Those roots are in Islam’s cannon of scripture, tradition & exegeses.

Allah commanded Muslims to wage war against Jews. He said that he would continually send someone to torment the Jews.  Moe said that he owned the earth and wished to expel the Jews.  He said that Allah had, on his account, taken special interest in the Levant and made its conquest a high priority. He told the Muslims that they could not enter Paradise until they complete the genocide of the Jews.

Allah promised the Muslims that he would give them dominion over the world. He promised victory.  He promised them a 2:1 kill ratio, that they would overcome armies twice their size.   Israel’s continued existence after several existential attacks proves Allah to be an impotent idol. That is something Muslims can not tolerate.  They can never allow Israel to live in peace no matter what concessions she might make.

Allah commanded Muslims to conquer and subjugate the entire world.  he threatened them with eternal damnation  if they refuse.  He promised them eternal bliss in the celestial bordello if they make the effort.

The feeble minded mental midgets we elected to bring peace to the world,  keep this nation safe, and those Israel elected to keep her safe are incapable of connecting the data points and discovering the obvious conclusion: that peace is impossible so long as Muslims believe in and attempt to implement Allah’s commandments.

As Secretary-General, I stand ready to take any necessary action, and will continue my personal engagement to contribute to a resolution of the conflict.

If that was said with any sincerity, you would sit down and shut up without making any of those annoyingly  stupid statements.  Instead, you would begin a crusade to eliminate Islam from the face of the earth.

Memri has a video clip of a pep rally aboard the flotilla. The terrorists were chanting a reminder of the conquest of Khaibar.  At the end of the clip, one woman declares that they will have one of two good outcomes: martyrdom or Gaza.

Bare Naked Islam  has a  slide show of  weapons taken from militants on the flotilla please take a close look at it and read the accompanying text.  This video, which I found in that same post, shows the terrorists preparing to receive the Israeli boarding party. Note the gas masks, rods and slingshots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU&feature=player_embedded

Another post at BNI has a video of the attack.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24&feature=player_embedded

This one is mainly audio & sub titles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFGuwUGaI9o&feature=player_embedded

Another BNI post has video of the attack.  If you have any respect for Obama, Clinton & Moon after watching this, you are morally defective; the world would be better off without you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaiMjAULWn0&feature=player_embedded

The U.N. is part of the problem, not part of the solution; we need to Quit the U.N.  Get the U.S.A. out of the U.N. and vice versa!!!

June 3, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

U.S.A. vs Durban Declaration


A press release distributed by Press Zoom  appears to be taken from the records of the Third Committee, describing the debate and voting on several resolutions before the committee.

Those resolutions included the five-part draft text on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action ( document A/C.3/64/L.54/Rev.1 ), which was introduced by the representative of Sudan, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

32. Calls upon all States, in accordance with the commitments undertaken in paragraph 147 of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action,1 to take all necessary measures to combat incitement to violence motivated by racial hatred,
including through the misuse of print, audio-visual and electronic media and new communication technologies
, and, in collaboration with service providers, to promote the use of such technologies, including the Internet to contribute to the fight against racism, in conformity with international standards of freedom of expression and taking all necessary measures to guarantee that right;

33. Encourages all States to include in their educational curricula and social programmes at all levels, as appropriate, knowledge of and tolerance and respect for all cultures, civilizations, religions, peoples and countries, as well as information on the follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; [Emphasis added.]

Paragraph 32 quoted above is aimed directly at all criticism of Islam.  Its practical implementation is best illustrated by the words of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

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.” [Emphasis added for clarity.]

The man chiefly responsible for enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that there is no right to tell the truth about Islam. Fitna is not hate speech nor is it incitement; it accurately depicts Islamic hate speech and incitement.  The pending  trial of Geert Wilders on charges of hate speech is a prime example of  the violation of freedom of expression intended by the sponsors of this resolution.

Paragraph 33 encourages turning our schools into instruments  of propaganda & indoctrination, bordering on proselytizing.  It is impossible for an informed and rational person to tolerate or respect Islam because Islam is supremely intolerant and denies our rights and dignity in addition to declaring perpetual war against us.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said his country was deeply committed to fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance at home and abroad.  Its founding commitment to the principle that all people were created equal was manifested in its own legislation and its work around the world.  Among other things, the United States had, in October, presented an action plan during the meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards. [Emphasis added for clarity.]

The bold faced clause is composed of three code phrases for ‘Islamophobia’.  The preliminary meeting to prepare for the Durban II Racism Conference redefined racism to include criticism of Islam.

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

Obamanation is “deeply committed to fighting” criticism of Islam. Their whining about freedom of expression is a smoke screen to cover their actual intent: to silence all criticism of Islam and the  regime’s Socialist agenda.


He said the United States had been unable to support the Durban Review Conference because it supported the 2001 World Conference, in toto.  The United States was deeply concerned about hateful speech, but did not agree that the best way to combat such speech was by its prohibition.  Rather, the United States believed an effective approach was based on three key elements, including robust legal protections against hate crimes, outreach to religious groups and vigorous defence of freedom of expression.  It regretted having to vote “no” on this text and looked forward to working together with the international community.  It remained deeply committed to ongoing, thoughtful dialogue on combating racism and racial discrimination.
[Emphasis added for clarity, spelling original.]

“Hateful speech” is code for any negative expression about Islam, including  Fitna: and the Danish Cartoons. Notice that the regime is concerned about the outcome: silencing all criticism, they seek an  “effective approach”, a method that will result in silence.

“Hate crimes”: if any expression should be criminalized, that is the one. Assaulting, killing or harassing  anyone is a crime, regardless of the victim’s identity, religion, gender, etc. There is no group of persons more deserving of protection than any other.

“Outreach to religious groups” is  code for pandering to Islam, submitting to its outrageous demands. Islam’s most outrageous demand is that we submit and become Muslims.  We might as well be bitten by Dracula and become vampires.  Islamic law forbids any and all negative expression about Allah, Moe, the Qur’an & the laws  they issued.  If you doubt this, open Reliance of the Traveller to O8.7 and read the list of acts which entail leaving Islam, the penalty for which is death (O8.2).  For the law’s applicability to non-Muslims, see  O11.10(5).

Far from being a saintly Prophet, Moe was a pedophile who married the six year old daughter of his best friend. He  solicited the murder of critics. He was guilty of  genocide; preaching and practicing it.

Far from being a  “great religion of peace”, Islam is a mercenary war cult, contrived for the purpose of enriching and empowering its founder by perpetuating war so that he could accrue the spoils.

Islam’s objective in demanding blasphemy laws & censorship is to disarm us in the war of ideas so that, in the words of George Washington,  “dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter”.

If you are a lover of liberty and the rights ensured by the Bill of Rights, then do your part to preserve them by signing and propagating these petitions. Send their links  to everyone you can hope to influence with an exhortation to sign and forward them.

 

November 28, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Defamation of Religions Draft 10-29-09


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

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

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

Now, some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree. The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution.

I will begin with references to those concepts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does anyone else recognize the non sequitur in that item?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Negative stereotyping occurs three times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

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

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

Another provision prescribes the penalty.

O8.1

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

O8.2

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

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

O11.10

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

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 4, 2009 Posted by | United Nations | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Defamation of Religions: Background Info.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

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

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

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

O11.10

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

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Defamation of Islam resolution contained these expressions.

1.             Expresses deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions;

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Other relevant  documents of interest:

November 3, 2009 Posted by | United Nations | , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

%d bloggers like this: