Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Innocence of Islam Update: Heinous Defamation of Islam Petition


 

A growing number of Muslims has been searching the web for a petition
demanding the banning of the video: Innocence of Muslims. Their
searches have taken them to my blog posts about the video.  Now a
petition has been uttered and published and I am taking it apart bit by
bit because I take every instance of bitching about Islamophobia as an
opportunity to redouble exposure of Islam’s rotten core.

I am aware of the possibility that this blog post
will increase the petition’s publicity and signatures. So be it.
I have no doubt that it will receive far more signatures than the counter petition for preservation of free speech
because Muslims are organized and highly motivated.

Heinous Defamation of Islam and slandering of Prophet Muhammad must be
stopped from being labeled as Freedom of Expression and Action

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/heinous-defamation-of-islam-and-slandering-of-prophet-m.html

Preamble

In the light of the movie “Innocence of
Muslims” the International Defamation Laws regarding religions must be
revised.

An act of freedom is committed for liberation not for causing violence.
Defamation of Religions must be barred. FREEdom of expression and
action does not mean letting all hell lose if that be the case then
there should never have been any laws made or enforced.

Any statement or act that causes social, political and mental unrest to
any section, sector, social group of society must have a law against it

Petition

The
movie “Innocence of Muslims” must be internationally banned and
International Defamation Laws must be revised to ensure that no more
intolerable religious slandering and defamation is carried out by any
individual or group of individuals against any Religious groups.

Innocence of Muslims

Islamic doctrine holds that only Muslims are
innocent: all others are rebelling against Allah and his Messenger.
Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:33
lists the punishments  applicable to rebels against Allah and his
Messenger including crucifixion, amputations and expulsion.  It is
only when we turn to Tafsir Ibn Kathir
that we learn the meaning of “wage war” in this context.  A list
of alternative elements is included, and it “includes disbelief.”

Anyone who does not believe in Allah and
embrace Islam is guilty of “waging war against Allah and his
Messenger”;
subject to execution.  The Hanifi school’s code of Shari’ah rules
that infidelity is to be punished by “destruction” .  In the case
of Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians, payment of Jizya may be substituted for destruction.  It
also states that Infidels may be attacked without provocation.
For the details on Jizya, click the link above and scroll up to page
213.

Are Muslims innocent?

Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and his Messenger.  They are
commanded to emulate Muhammad.  Allah’s imperatives which must be obeyed include: offensive conquest
against Pagans and People of the Book, terrorism [See also 8:57
& 8:60]
and genocide. Moe’s exemplary conduct to be emulated
includes: offensive conquest, genocide. rape of captured women and extortion.

To the extent that Muslims obey Allah and emulate Moe as they are commanded to do, they are
not innocent.  To the extent that they disobey, they are hypocrites, whose Islam goes no deper than their throats, who are to be killed.

International Defamation Laws

There are no international laws prohibiting
defamation of religion.  The HRC & GA resolutions passed each
year for the last decade do not have the force of law, they serve only
to give immoral authority to national blasphemy laws, which are used to
persecute indigenous minorities. An Ad Hoc Cmte. of the HRC has been
established to elaborate complementary standards to be injected
into ICERD through a binding protocol which would impose Islamic blasphemy law on the signatories to ICERD.

Under Shari’ah, any contradiction of Islam is
punishable. Simply saying “Jesus is Lord” can cost you your head.
Reviling Allah, Moe or Islam can cost you your head.  It is
labeled as mentioning “anything impermissible“.  Simple denial of
Allah’s deity  or Moe’s prophethood is sufficient.

Under the numerous resolutions, associating Islam
with terrorism is condemned.  If the Ad Hoc Cmte. is successful,
this listing of evidence of the association will be a criminal
offense.  3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67,
9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123,
33:26,27,
47:4,49:15,
59:2,13,
61:10-13;
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220.

act of freedom

Our founders revolted against King George in 1776.
Ten years later, J.Q. Adams and T. Jefferson were asking Tripoli’s
Ambassador to England by what right the Barbary Pirates sacked our
shipping.  They were told that it was written in their laws that
Infidels should be attacked.  You would make Jefferson’s report to
Congress a criminal act.

free speech

Free speech is essential to a representative
republic so that the citizens can discuss political issues and matters
of state without fear of persecution.  The First Amendment
guarantees that we can criticize President Obama and his policies
without fear of arrest and detention.

Obamination

  • “Islam is a great religion of peace”
  • “We are not at war with Islam.”
  • “Our Muslim allies.”

Each and every one of those statements is a
God damned lie. Our liberties would be denied and our lives endangered
by criminalizing uttering & publishing refutations of those
lies.  For example: this list of relevant ayat is proof of the
falsehood of the third listed lie. You would make this a criminal
offense.


3:28
[http://www.islam-universe.com/tafsir//3.8052.html],
3:1184:89, 4:139, 4:1445:51, 9:23, 9:33, 60:1, 60:13

Our lives and liberties are already endangered by
prohibiting instructors at West Point and the War College from telling
the truth about Islamic doctrine and practice.

causing violence

Violence is caused by the damnable doctrines of
Islam, not by exposing them in videos.  The Innocence of Muslims
was on line for more than a month with no violence until it was
exploited by Egyptians as a pretext for violence required by their
damnable doctrines.

Defamation

To be defamatory, speech must be false and malicious
under Western legal standards. Islam’s slander law is different; it
prohibits any speech the subject does not like.

R2.2: Slander

Slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a
person that he would dislike
, whether about his body, religion, everyday life,
self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban,
garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning,
cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him.

defamation of Islam

Islam is already infamous because Moe deliberately
built a reputation for barbarian rapine so as to terrorize future
victims, rendering them incapable of mounting an effective
defense.  I refer doubters, dissenters and deniers to  8:57 & 59:13. See, for example, the reaction of one
Jewish settlement:

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.”  Sahih Bukhari 4.52.195

The video does not defame Moe or Islam because its
conceptual content is true.  I disrespectfully direct doubters,
dissenters & deniers to another blog post which documents the fatal
facts:  http://dajjal.posterous.com/innocence-of-muslims-true-or-false-you-be-the
.

Religion

By tradition, it is assumed that anything wearing
the mantle of religion is one, and is an equally valid pathway to
deity, on a par with Judaism and Christianity.  Assumptions make
asses of you.  Islam is perpetual war, far from being benign,
beneficent and anodyne, it is mercenary, martial and malignant.  For those damned
fools who know
that “Islam is not war”, I have a surprise: Moe told the truth
once.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

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

Jihad is the original religion
of Islam, which must not be abandoned on pain of execration.
Jihad is preferred  over agriculture and trade as an economic
model.

banned

If defamation of religions were banned, and the
proscriptions on genocide and propaganda for war were enforced, the
Shari’ah, along with Qur’an,  hadith  & tafsir would be
outlawed and their publication & reading prohibited. I
disrespectfully direct doubters, dissenters & deniers to 1:6, 5:60, 9:34 & 98:6.

September 22, 2012 Posted by | Islam, Petitions, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Istanbul Process: Censorship Through Subterfuge


Istanbul Process: Censorship Through Subterfuge

The
fall session of the Istanbul Process has concluded; while we await
publication of their report we can reflect on the manifold deceptions
which passed the lips of two participants.  I have selected the
most important phrases out of context for criticism.

It is not possible to advance respect for religious
freedom & tolerance where Allah’s writ runs. There is neither
tolerance nor respect for religions other than Islam in Egypt, Saudi
Arabia and other nations dominated by Islam.  The positive
attitudes desired by Amb. Cook do not  and can not exist there
because of the doctrines of Islam.

  • Non-Muslims are cursed.
    • 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
      .
    • 3:12.
      Say (O Muhammad ) to those who disbelieve: “You will be defeated and gathered
      together to Hell
      , and worst indeed is that place to rest.”
    • 9:30.
      And the Jews say:
      ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah
      is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate
      the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh’s Curse be on them, how
      they are deluded away from the truth!
  • Only Islam is accepted.
    • 3:19.
      Truly, the religion with Allâh
      is Islâm
      .
      Those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) did not differ
      except, out of mutual jealousy, after knowledge had come to them. And
      whoever disbelieves in the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, signs,
      revelations, etc.) of Allâh, then surely, Allâh is Swift in calling to
      account.
    • 3:85.
      And whoever seeks a religion
      other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him
      , and in the
      Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
  • Unbelief is a great evil under Shari’ah..
    • Unbelief is the vilest
      form of corruption
      , as goes without saying. [Reliance of the
      Traveller O24.2
    • Leaving Islam is the
      ugliest form of unbelief
      (kufr) and the worst. [08.0]
    • …a non-Muslim has no
      right to authority
      and hence no right to raise a Muslim. [M13.2]
      • false
        divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression

        [Quoting H.C.]

For the full quote, turn to page 35 of the April ’11 Islamophobia Report.
Hillary’s assertion is malignant. Islam demands that all criticism of
Islam be squelched, which is clear in the text of previous HRC & GA
resolutions “Combating Defamation of Religions“.

Reliance of the Traveller defines apostasy with a
list of twenty acts which entail leaving Islam [O8.7]
Those acts include reviling Allah, Muhammad or Islam and denial of any
Islamic law or doctrine.  The penalty for apostasy is execution,
specified in the second section of chapter 8. [O8.1]
The same rule and punishment are imposed upon conquered Jews &
Christians living in Dar ul-Islam as Dhimmis: -5- or mentions something impermissible
about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or
Islam. [O11.10]
The penalty imposed upon a Dhimmi who blasphemes is the same as he
would suffer when captured in battle, one of four choices by the Imam,
death being the first listed. [O9.14]

The OIC demanded prosecution of the publisher of the
Motoons and demanded that the Dutch government block the publication of
Fitna. After the publication, they demanded prosecution. Egypt is
demanding that publication of Wilders’ upcoming book be blocked.

      • Resolution
        16/18 secured an international consensus around an action-oriented
        approach to combat religious intolerance in line with respect for
        universal human rights—including religious freedom and freedom of
        expression.

“Respect for freedom of expression” yeah, right. The
following paragraph occurs on page two of the resolution:

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;

“Derogatory stereotyping ” & “negative stereotypes”  are
encrypted references to  associating Islam with
terrorism
.  Last year’s GA resolution expresses it this
way:

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;

Oh, but that meme has been abandoned, hasn’t it?  Yeah, right. Two
resolutions came out of the Third Committee in November, one based on
19/18 and

A/C.3/66/L.48/Rev.1 : “Elimination of all forms of
intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief”.

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;

Islam = terrorism because Allah said that he would
cast terror, did cast terror & Moe said that it made him
victorious.  I present to you relevant, verifiable proof from the
Qur’an, Tafsir Ibn Kathir & Sahih Bukhari, the most authentic of
the six canonical hadith collections.

  • 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those
    who disbelieve
  • 7:4.  How many a township have We
    destroyed! As a raid
    by night
    , or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.
    • Our torment came upon them by
      night or while they were taking their midday nap. ) means, Allah’s
      command, torment and vengeance came over them at night or while taking
      a nap in the middle of the day. Both of these times are periods of rest
      and leisure or heedlessness and amusement.  Nations that were destroyed
  • 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.”
    • …(I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have
      disbelieved.)
      means, `you — angels — support the believers, strengthen their
      (battle) front against their enemies, thus, implementing My command to
      you. I will cast
      fear, disgrace and humiliation over those who defied My command and
      denied My Messenger
      ,
      (so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers
      and
      toes.) strike them on their foreheads to tear them apart and over the
      necks to cut them off, and cut off their limbs, hands and feet….Allah commands the Angels to fight and support the
      Believers
  • 8:60. Against them make ready your strength to
    the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into
    (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others
    besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye
    shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall
    not be treated unjustly.
  • 33:26. And those of the people of the
    Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allah 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 cast terror into their
      hearts
      😉 means fear, because they had
      supported the idolators in their war against the Messenger of Allah and
      the one who knows is not like the one who does not know. They had
      terrified the Muslims and intended to kill them so as to gain earthly
      power, but their plans backfired; the idolators ran away and the
      believers were victorious while the disbelievers were losers; where
      they had aimed for glory, they were humiliated. The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah
  • 59:2.
    He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the
    Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Bani An-Nadir) from their
    homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get
    out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from
    Allah! But Allah’s (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they
    expected it not, and He cast terror into
    their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own
    hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with
    eyes (to see).
    • …Therefore, Allah
      sent His torment down on them
      ;
      it can never be averted, and His appointed destiny touched them; it can
      never be resisted. The Prophet forced them to evacuate and abandon
      their fortified forts that Muslims did not think they would ever
      control. …Then take admonition, O you with eyes.) meaning,
      “Contemplate the end of those who defied Allah’s command, contradicted
      His Messenger and denied His Book. See how Allah’s humiliating torment
      struck them in this life, as well as, the painful torment that Allah
      has reserved for them in the Hereafter.”… The End that Bani An-Nadir suffered

  • 59:13. Of a truth ye are stronger (than they)
    because of the terror in their hearts, (sent) by
    God. This is because they are men devoid of understanding.
  • 8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in
    war, punish them
    severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they
    may learn a lesson
    .
    • …(then disperse those who are behind them,) by severely
      punishing
      ﴿the captured people﴾ according to Ibn `Abbas, Al-Hasan Al-Basri,
      Ad-Dahhak, As-Suddi, `Ata’ Al-Khurasani and Ibn `Uyaynah. This
      Ayah commands punishing them harshly and inflicting casualties on them.
      This way, other enemies, Arabs and non-Arabs, will be afraid and take a
      lesson from their end
      ,… Striking Hard against Those Who disbelieve and break
      the Covenants
  •  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. .

  • 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).

“Programs and agendas pursued by extremist
organizations” is an encrypted reference to the Dutch and Austrian
Freedom Parties and the American Tea Party.  They want to make the
Tea Party and negative expressions about Islam in campaign
advertisements illegal. If you doubt this, read the April ’11 Islamophobia Report, pages 3, 6 & 49

      • calls
        on states to take specific measures to combat religious intolerance

The call comes on page 2 of the resolution.

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;

  • incidents of
    • intolerance: Islamophobia
    • negative stereotyping: Terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of
      Islam :. Muslims are terrorists.
    • avocacy of religious hatred
      • constitutes incitement
        • discrimination
        • hostility
        • violence: any & every criticism of Islam, exemplified
          by Fitna, the Motoons & Qur’an burning
  • effective measures:  legislation and its enforcement

Article 19

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

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

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

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

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

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be
prohibited by law

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

Reservations:

       “(1)
That article 20 does
not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United
States that would restrict the
right of free speech
and association protected by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.

Several of the resolutions make allusion to  19.3, attempting to
stretch 19.3.a to cover Islam.  Note that the U.S.A. reserved our
First Amendment right of free expression.  Several resolutions
bitterly kvetch about that reservation, demanding its repeal. The HRC
has an Ad Hoc
Committee on Elaboration of Complementary Standards

whose mission is to write a binding protocol which will insert the
provisions of previous defamation of Islam resolutions into one of the
human rights covenants.

Define advocacy of hatred that constitutes
incitement. Exactly what does that expression in 20.2 mean in the real
world.  For the answer, we must turn to the Secretary General.

.

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 meets the test
of 20.2. There is one little problem: Fitna is an exposure of
incitement, it is not incitement.  I direct doubters &
dissenters to this blog post which documents Fitna’s scriptural
citations
: The intention of HRC 16/18 is to criminalize Fitna, the
Motoons, this
blog post and every criticism of Islam.

      • Those
        rights include the right to believe and the right practice a religion
        not sanctioned by the state — or no religion at all.

Who can argue with the right to belief &
practice of religion?  Islam does, and I can, too!  The
existence of a right to practice Islam is an impossibility because the
practice of Islam entails genocide, terror,plunder, extortion, &
rape. This fatal fact is fully documented here: 
No
Right to Practice Islam!

Allah said  that only he has the right to be
worshiped. Get a clue.

  • 3:2.
    Allâh! Lâ ilahâ illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He),
    the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that
    exists.
  • O11.5 -6- are forbidden to openly display
    wine or pork, (A: to ring
    church bells or display crosses
    ,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud,
    or make public display of their
    funerals and feastdays;
      -7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

Islam does not accept the UDHR,
it substituted the Cairo Declaration,
which makes Shari’ah the bottom line. I just quoted the relevant
Shari’ah for you. Get a clue: scroll to the end of the declaration and
read Articles 24 & 25.  Its Shari’ah, stupid, refer to
Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 11.5, quoted above.
Freedom of religion is a one way street: for Muslims only.

      • This
        purpose is to advance religious freedom, promote religious tolerance,
        and combat discrimination on the basis of religion or belief—consistent
        with universal human rights principles.

The purpose is permanently frustrated because Islam does not and will
not allow religious freedom or  tolerate religions  and
discriminates against indigenous religious minorities.
Those flaws are intrinsic to the core of Islam and can not be altered
or removed because Islam can not be reformed.

  • protect
    religious minorities and protect freedom of expression

Indigenous Christians in Egypt & Pakistan will
be charged with blasphemy and persecuted, up to and including execution
for saying “Jesus is Lord.”. HRC 16/18 does nothing to change Shari’ah
nor its implementation in Islamic nations and that is not its
intention.  Its stated mission is to prevent and punish “negative
stereotyping”, which is substituted for “defamation of religions”,
which was substituted for “defamation of Islam”. A skunk by any other
name will smell as pungent.  The resolution reeks, likewise the
clever words with which it is being disguised & promoted, which are
redolent of feces.

      •  some
        people distort various religious doctrines to justify intolerance,
        foment violence, or create strife that serves their narrow political
        purposes

Islam’s mission is to enrich its founder & his
successors through the professional practice of war and
extortion.  I direct doubters & dissenters to a previous blog
post for the disgusting details: Islam’s Mercenary Mission.
Genocidal jihad which terrorizes its victims is an intrinsic sacrament
of Islam, not a radical innovation.  I direct doubters &
dissenters to a previous blog post which exposes the disgusting
details: What’s
Wrong With Islam/Muslims?
.

      • faith
        must never be a crime and religion must never be used as an excuse to
        stifle freedom of expression.

“Faith without works is dead.” and faith without
content is empty.  Faith ain’t the problem: doctrines are!
It is what they believe, not the fact that they believe. Faith produces
works; the works of Islam are genocidal conquest, rape, pillage &
extortion; this is why there can be No
Right to Practice Islam
.

The objective of HRC 16/18 and its successor
before the GA is to criminalize and punish the publication of the facts
contained in this blog post. The OIC tried to block the publication of
Fitna. They are trying to block the publication of a new book by Geert
Wilders. They demanded that he be persecuted for Fitna.

  • Remarks at the Istanbul Process for Combating Intolerance and
    Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

Hillary just told us that there is a right kill,
enslave, rape, plunder and extort disbelievers. Does she also
believe that there is a right to free expression? What did she say
about International Burn the Qur’an Day?  Did she uphold Rev.
Jones’ right to express his disdain for the damnable doctrines of Islam
by burning a Qur’an?  No, she condemned the planned event,
labeling it as hate speech and inciting violence, the same terms she
used to condemn the trial & burning of the Qur’an last March.

      • this
        resolution marks a step forward in creating a safe global environment
        for practicing and expressing one’s beliefs
      • In
        it, we pledge to protect the freedom of religion for all while also
        protecting freedom of expression.

There is no step toward religious freedom short of
eradicating Islam. Does Hillary plan to send the Marines to protect
Copts in Egypt?  No resolution will protect them!  Only
overwhelming force will prevent Muslims from killing members of
Christian minorities in Africa, Arabia & Asia.  Nobody
proposes to assemble and apply that force.

Islam can only be eradicated by inducing mass
apostasy.  Mass apostasy can only be induced by exposing the Ummah
to the glaring reality of the identity and attributes of Allah, the
character and works of Moe and the horrific crimes against humanity
perpetrated in Allah’s name over the last 14 centuries.

Previous resolutions demanded criminalizing
association of Islam with terrorism, an intrinsic sacrament of which
Moe bragged. Another resolution pending in the General Assembly demands
criminalizing equating Islam with terrorism.

      • born
        free to practice any religion, to change our religion, or to have none
        at all.

Open Reliance of the Traveller to Book O, Chapter 8
and start reading through 8.7; there is a link above. Who will go to
Pakistan and enforce the right to convert to Christianity?  Will
Hillary or Ban go?  Whom will they send; will they return alive
and whole from that mission?  You can not change the Qur’an &
sunnah on which O8.1 is based, so, exactly what will you do about it?

      • they
        are not rights bestowed by any government. They are rights endowed by
        our Creator within each of us. And therefore, we have a special
        obligation to protect these God-given rights.

Only the U.S. government has an obligation to
protect our rights.  Res. 16/18 is part of a campaign to
eviscerate our right to free speech. Hillary’s State department is
acting in contravention of the First Amendment.

      • restricting
        the practice of anyone’s faith is a threat to the human rights of all
        individuals.

Muslims believe that they have a divine right and religious
obligation
to conquer
the entire world
, by intimidation & force, including “casting
terror”. That right and obligation is inseverable; Islam
is all or nothing
. Muslims who believe “fight in Allah’s cause, killing
others and being killed
. Only
those who participate in jihad are believers
. Muslims are commanded
to obey Allah and Moe
.  Allah commanded them to “fight
the disbelievers nearest you
“.  Open Sahih Bukhari 52 to see what Moe did, which is to
be emulated.  Terrorism is an act of worship, intrinsic to the
practice of Islam; Muslims earn Brownie
Points for any step taken to injure or enrage
disbelievers.

Hillary just informed us that preventing Muslims
from engaging in terrorism is an infringement of their human right to
the free practice of religion. Muslims can not fully practice Islam
without it.

      • my
        ability to practice my religious faith freely does not, and indeed
        cannot, diminish yours

Your Methodism, Hillary, does not impair the
practice of Islam. A Muslim, practicing his religion can rape and kill
you as an act of worship.  Of course, that does not diminish your
rights at all, does it?

      • Religion
        can be such a powerful bond, but we also recognize that it can be
        misused to create conflict.

Creating conflict and perpetuating war are not
misuses of Islam, they are its mission.  Its jihad, stupid! The “original religion” of Islam is jihad and jihad is war against non-Muslims. Allah will curse
Muslims with disgrace if they abandon jihad for trade and
agriculture.

      • There
        are those who, for reasons actually having little to do with religion,
        seek to instill fear or contempt for those of another creed.

That is an obvious sideswipe at “Islamophobes”;
those of us who expose and warn others about the damnable doctrines
& practices of Islam.  Hillary implies that critics of Islam
are rousing the rabble to lynch Muslims.  If that was true, we
could and should be prosecuted.  In fact we are not, but far from
it.

      • So
        we believe that it is the duty of every government to ensure that
        individuals are not subject to violence, discrimination, or
        intimidation because of their faith or their lack of faith. 

The governments of Egypt, Pakistan and other Islam
dominated nations are active, willing participants in intimidation,
discrimination & persecution of indigenous Christian minorities and
turn a blind eye to Islamic violence.

      • At
        the same time, as we strive to protect individuals from violence and
        discrimination because of their religion or their beliefs, we must also
        express the freedom of expression.

Terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of
Islam.  Muslims earn Brownie Points with each act of
terrorism.  9/11 was an act of worship.  The OIC seeks to
criminalize and punish the uttering and publishing of those fatal
facts.  The resolution they ran through the GA last year is clear
on that matter.  Res 16/18 focuses on incitement to hatred and
violence.  According to Ban Ki-Moon,  exposing the direct
connection between Islamic scripture, preaching and terrorism is hate
speech and incitement not protected by freedom of expression.  If
he had the power, Ban would prohibit the publication of this blog post.
The purpose of Res 16/18 is to con our government into doing it for
him.

      • Well,
        how would one know that you were being discriminated against if you
        didn’t have the right to freedom of expression?

The right of free expression is essential to
discussion of affairs of state; to political campaigns in
particular.  When we perceive a real, proximate and continuing
threat to our personal and national security, we must be free to warn
our fellow citizens.  When we are offended by the arrogant
exactions of enemy forces, we must be free to express our outrage and
contempt.  The resolution you seek to implement is designed to
eliminate our right to free speech.

      • So
        the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression are absolutely
        bound up together.

My right to warn of the damnable mission, doctrines
and practices of Islam does not, in any way impair anyone’s freedom of
religion.  If Muslims have a right to practice Islam, then all of
my rights are impaired.  The right to live and the right to
practice Islam can not coexist because Islam is a license to kill; a
declaration of open season in denial of the right to life and
property.  I direct doubters & dissenters to Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387.

      • Now,
        there are those who have always seen a tension between these two
        freedoms, especially when one person’s speech seems to question someone
        else’s religious beliefs, 

Open Reliance of the Traveller, the Shafi’ite
handbook of fiqh which serves as the main codification of Shari’ah, to
BookO11.10 and learn that Dhimmis can be killed for
mentioning
anything “impermissible” about Allah, Moe or Islam.

      • or
        maybe even offends that person’s beliefs.

      • But
        the truth we have learned, through a lot of trial and error over more
        than 235 years in our country, is that we defend our beliefs best by
        defending free expression for everyone, and it lowers the temperature.
        It creates an environment in which you are free to exercise and to
        speak about your religion, whether your neighbor or someone across the
        town agrees with you or not.
      •  In
        fact, the appropriate answer to speech that offends is more speech.

Speech that offends: “fight them until”, “fight
those who …until”, “I am commanded to fight”, “I will cast terror”,
“Allah cast terror” so that “some you killed” and others you “made
captive”. I am offended by the Qur’an, hadith, Exegesis & Shari’ah!
I am offended by shouts of  “Allahu akbar!”.  I am offended
by the accursed abomination 9/11 and every Islamic act of
terrorism.

This blog post, the hundreds of similar posts which
preceded
it and those that will follow it are my response to intolerable
evil.  My disrespectful demand that Islam be outlawed, Muslims
expelled and excluded from the U.S.A. is my response to intolerable
evil.  My curse that I will not vote for any candidate for high
office who does not explicitly condemn Islam is my response to
intolerable evil.

      • It
        is hurtful when bigotry pollutes the public sphere, 

Informed and reasoned opposition to &
denunciation of Islam, based on the facts contained in its canon of
scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence is not bigotry. The
hallmarks of bigotry are ignorance and a closed mind.

      • but
        the state does not silence ideas, no matter how disagreeable they might
        be, 

You just confessed, in context of Res.16/18, that
exposure & condemnation of Islam are disagreeable to you and that
you consider them to be bigotry.  You also lied, because the
state, in seeking to implement 16/18, seeks to criminalize & punish
all criticism of Islam.  You have, in fact, adopted
the  agenda of the enemy: to silence our messages of warning and
dissent.

      • because
        we believe that in the end, the best way to treat offensive speech is
        by people either ignoring it or combating it with good arguments and
        good speech that overwhelms it.

My side has the facts, Hillary. It is not possible
to refute our condemnation of Islam because what we say is supported by
ample evidence found in Islam’s canon.  You can not refute the
facts outlined in this blog post. You can lie about them, spew
ad-hominem & Tu-quoque, but you can not prevail with fact and logic
because Islam is intrinsically evil, by design and incapable of
reformation.

      • So
        we do speak out and condemn hateful speech.

You condemned Pastor Jones when he sponsored
International Burn the Koran Day.  You condemned him when he tried
and executed the Qur’an last March. You and General Petraeus betrayed
us, blaming Jones for Muslim riots stirred up among rabid rabble by
rabid Imams at Jumah Salat.  Jones did not incite violence. Jones
did not engage in hate speech. Jones did not violate anyone’s
rights.  When you accused Jones of inciting violence, you did, in
fact, incite violence by encouraging Muslims to riot.  I call
treason when I see it.  You and Obama should be impeached,
convicted of treason and removed from office.

      •  In
        fact, we think it is our duty to do so,
      •  but
        we don’t ban it or criminalize it.

Res. 16/18 is a continuation of the string of
resolutions spawned by the OIC’s Ten year Plan.  Scroll down to Art. VI,
item 3 and read about it.  Read Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoglu’s speech to the HRC Session 15
and Amb. Akram’s statement
to Session 16, which is transcribed in this blog post.  When we read those two
screeds and the Islamophobia Reports,  the intent of the
resolution is unmistakably clear.

Fasten your seat belts, this is where the going gets
rough. Put away all fire, choke and spill hazards before you continue
reading.

      • Now,
        with Resolution 1618, we have clarified these dual objectives. 

Malignant malarkey!  You clarified nothing, you
obfuscated your intention to criminalize criticism of Islam. That is
kitman as well as al-Taqiyya.

      • We
        embrace the role that free expression plays in bolstering religious
        tolerance. 

No sentient person, informed of the damnable
doctrines & practices of Islam, will ever tolerate its existence!
Free expression does not bolster tolerance, it bolsters exposure and
awareness! You spoke of a one sided free expression, limited to false
praise of Islam, not extending to honest criticism.

      • We
        have agreed to build a culture of understanding and acceptance
        through 

Anyone who understands Islam will never accept it!

      • concrete
        measures to combat discrimination and violence,  

Only Islam and Muslims advocate violence; we
advocate laws to expel and exclude Islam’s fifth column for the purpose
of preventing violence. Do you allow rattlesnakes to reside in your
house? Excluding rattlesnakes is discriminatory.

      • such
        as education and outreach, and we are working together to achieve those
        objectives.

When a Muslim says “education” he means
indoctrination.  Nothing exposed in the links provided in this
blog post is included in instructional materials used in our
educational system, with the exception of some doctoral programs at
large universities.     Outreach translates to
appeasement.

      • it’s
        one thing if people are just disagreeing. That is fair game. That’s
        free speech. 

They say that “only Allah has the right to be
worshiped” and that I must convert or be killed. I say that I have a
right to worship or not as I blessed well see fit, without being
intimidated or coerced.  They assert a duty to attack us, I assert
a right to effective national defense. They say I must be silent, I say
that I have an absolute right to expose their evil doctrines &
practices.

      • But
        if it results in sectarian clashes,

Sunni & Shi’ia are rivals for power. Power
corrupts. Nothing can stop them form internecine conflict.

      •  if
        it results in the destruction or the defacement or the vandalization of
        religious sites, 

In Africa, Arabia, & Asia, Muslims burn down
churches, with Christians in them.  That results from what is
preached in their local mosques, not what we write in our blogs.
We do not incite vandalism, a few  idiots driven over the edge by
frustration act on their own free will, without anyone telling them to.

      • if
        it even results in imprisonment or death, 

The trial and execution of a Qur’an in Florida did
not result in death. Those deaths and property damage resulted from the
rabid preaching at Jumah Salat, not anything anyone said or did over
here.

      • then
        government must held those – hold those who are responsible accountable.

I’d like to see how you are going to hold Allah
& Moe responsible for riots & murders inspired by the Qur’an
& Sunnah. Allah is an impotent idol and Moe has been dead
since   Do you think you can go to Egypt & Pakistan to
arrest, try and incarcerate the rabid Imams who rouse the rabble to
riot?  I’d like to see you try it.

There is a difference between shouting fire in a
crowded theater where there is no fire or rousing a lynch mob and
burning a Qur’an.  Exposing the damnable doctrines of Islam in a
blog post does not kill anyone or destroy any property.  Property
is destroyed and people are killed by Muslims engaged in an act of
worship: terrorism.  They don’t get their incitement from us, they
get it from Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis &
jurisprudence and from their Imams.

      • But
        I have to say we have one difficulty in understanding all of the
        problems that we see around the world, and that is
      • that
        because religion is so personal and because it is something that we
        highly value in ourselves,

No, it ain’t and anybody smarter than a Moron can
see it after a little investigation. Ignorant & indolent Morons
like you project the western concept of religion onto Islam, which it
does not fit.  We view religion as a beneficent & anodyne
agency of theology & interpersonal relationships.  Religions
are our source of much of our morality & ethics.

Islam is presented and accepted by Muslims as the
absolute rule of Allah, which must be obeyed in all times, at all
places. It governs every facet of human life from conception through
burial.  It dictates how they eat, how they defecate and how they
wipe their butts. It also imposes upon them a demonic mandate to
conquer and subjugate the entire world.  Go to Amazon.com and get
a copy of Reliance of the Traveller or Volume II of hedaya and start
reading. You can learn much from the table of contents.

Islam is not a benign, anodyne & benevolent
theology, it is a continuing criminal enterprise; a war crime against
humanity motivated by filthy lucre: “The Spoils of War.
After reading the first verse, skip ahead to 41, then 60 & 67.  Turn next to 33:26-27 and  48:15-20.   Turn next to Sahih Muslim 19.4327Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220,  & 4.52.267.  If, after checking those
references, you can not correctly answer the following review
questions, its time to consider suicide to protect the gene pool.

  1. To whom do the spoils belong?
  2. Who gets the top 20%?
  3. What was Moe’s motivation?
  4. What is Allah’s motivation?
    [Hint: it ain’t getting Moe into his celestial bordello.]
  5. What was the net effect of casting terror?
  6. What did Allah promise Muslims?
  7. What is the legal status of taking spoils?
  8. What did Allah give Moe?
  9. How did Muslims invest the treasures of the Persian &
    Byzantine Empires?

 

      •  it
        strikes us as troubling that people are not confident in their
        religious beliefs

      • to
        the point where they do not fear speech that raises questions about
        religion.
         

Muslims are hypersensitive because their faith is
false.  The ruling class is in the know, it is likely that many of
the clerical class are true believers. They do not want the Ummah to
find out.

Christians have a long chain of fulfilled Jewish
prophecies to base their faith on.  Muslims have only Moe’s word.
Islam begins and ends with Moe, who co-opted Jewish Prophets in hopes
of deceiving the local Jews.  The trick did not work; the Jews
laughed him to scorn, recognizing the fraud.

Go to a hadith search engine such as Islamic
Network
and search Sahih Bukhari  for these terms, without the
quotes: “was revealed”, “inspiration” and “your wishes and desires”.

      • every
        one of us who is a religious person knows that there are some who may
        not support or approve of our religion.

      • But is our religion so weak that
        statements of disapproval will cause us to lose our faiths?
         

Moe was extremely sensitive to criticism, so much so
that he ordered his companions to kill several critics.  One clear
example is in the hadith  where we can easily find it, others
are buried in  The Life of
Muhammad
and  Tabari’s
Tahrik
Answering Islam
has several of the relevant accounts.

      • That
        would be most unfortunate. In fact, what we have found, in study after
        study, is that the United States is one of the most religious countries
        in the world. And yet anybody can believe anything and go anywhere.

      • And
        so there is no contradiction between having strong religious beliefs
        and having the freedom to exercise them and to speak about them and to
        even have good debates with others.

Res. 16/18 puts some emphasis on inter-religious
dialog, assuming that it will deaden our awareness of the existential
conflict between Islam and Christianity. When Pope Benedict XVI
lectured at Regensburg, Muslims raised hell and a large number of the
Ulema wrote a missive entitled A Common Word Between Us and You. in which they
called for dialog to find “common ground”.  The central concept of
the missive is drawn from Surah Al Imran 3:64.
That ayeh ends with this sentence: “Bear witness that we are Muslims”;
those are fighting words.  Read the context through #112.
Those threatening words were used in Moe’s extortion letter to Heraclius.

To see how Moe conducted dialog with Christians
(demanding that they curse themselves) turn to this topic in Tafsir Ibn
Kathir: The Challenge to the Mubahalah.

      • Now,
        the fact is that no matter how
        strongly each of us believes, none of us has the benefit of knowing all
        the truth that God holds in his hands

Nobody knows for certain, but Islam asserts a claim
of certainty that it alone has a monopoly on truth and that our
religion is in error.

      • And
        therefore, we are doing the
        best we can here on
        earth to reflect and to give honor to our creator in a way that is
        manifest in our religious values
        . Because truly, at the root of every major religion,
        is a connection with the divinity, 

The root of Islam is war, not a connection with
divinity.  Search the hadith for “inspiration”, you will discover
how Moe got his “revelations”: in epileptic seizures. In the first
instance, he thought that he had wrestled with the devil but his wife
convinced him that he had encountered an angel.  Take another good
long look at 8:67;’
that is some connection with “divinity”.

      • Now
        I know that some in my country
        and elsewhere have criticized this meeting
        and our work with
        all of you.
      •  But
        I want to make clear that I am
        proud of this work,
        and I am proud to be working with every one
        of you. And I believe that this
        work is an affirmation of America’s values
        , but equally
        important an affirmation of
        universal values

Since when is anal osculation either an American or
universal value?  Lifting Satan’s tail & inserting
tongue  solves nothing. Abandoning our precious, hard won right to
speak and write the truth is not an American value.  American
values include life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness and
defeating our enemies. Yielding liberty to our enemies is the polar
opposite of American values.

      • Because
        we nor – no country
        individually has a monopoly on the truth
        , and we will do better
        when we live in peace with each other, 

In 1789 we were willing to live in peace with the
entire world but the Barbary pirates were not willing to live in peace
with us. They attacked our shipping and demanded tribute, which nearly
bankrupted the young nation. When asked by what right they attacked us,
the Algerian Ambassador replied
in terms which parallel
the reply of Umar’s field commander to the
Persians in Sahih Bukhari 4.53.386.     Peace
will only be possible after Islam is eliminated because Islam is permanent
war
.

      • when
        we live with respect and
        humility, and listen to each other. And it is important that we
        recognize what we accomplished
        when this resolution ended 10 years of divisive debate where people
        were not listening to each other anymore.

It is abundantly clear from the recent statements of
Akram & ishanoglu, as well as the Islamophobia Reports, that
the change is purely rhetorical, a semantic game at which our side
lost.

      • Now
        we are. We’re talking. We have
        to get past the idea that we can suppress religious minorities

This is a terrible place to use the royal we .  It is
Islam, not America that suppresses indigenous religious
minorities.  There is an external ‘religious’ minority which has
infiltrated a fifth column into America with moles in high places in
defense, intelligence and security agencies.  We need to expel and
exclude them. You condemn the only recourse we have a priori.

      • that
        we can restrict
        speech,

When you create a legal construct which ties what we
utter and publish with the completely unrelated actions of unrelated
people on other continents, completely beyond our control, assigning
blame to us for what they do on their own accord, then you are
attempting to restrict free speech by forcing self-censorship.
You are, in effect, erecting a heckler’s veto and abandoning the First
Amendment.

      • that
        we are smart enough
        that we can substitute our judgment for God’s and determine who is or
        is not blaspheming.
         

Open Reliance of the Traveller to O8.0 and start reading, continuing through O8.7;
get a clue!

      • And
        by bringing countries from around the world here,
      • we
        are affirming our common
        humanity

      • and our common commitment to defend
        and promote fundamental rights.

I doubt that any falser words were ever uttered in
the history of mankind. We are committed to defend and promote
fundamental rights, Muslims are not; Muslims are committed to the
abrogation of our rights.  Islam denies the sanctity of our blood
and property, declaring that we have no rights until we become Muslims.
Those denials are contained in Moe’s declaration  quoted in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. Projecting our own values
onto the enemy is a suicidal blunder.

      • We
        can think others are wrong, but we don’t feel so insecure and so
        fearful of their wrong views that we try to suppress them, imprison
        them, or even kill them.

Ten years ago, 19 Muslims hijacked four passenger
aircraft and flew three of them into occupied office structures.
They shouted “Allahu akbar!” while slitting the throats of the flight
crews. Subsequently, other Muslims, acting in the name of Allah, bombed
subways in Madrid and London and seized a school in Beslan.  Get a
clue!  In the last 1400 years, 270*106  innocent people lost their
lives to Islam
.  If we do not eradicate Islam, either ideologically or militarily, they will out breed
&  out last us and civilization will be destroyed.

December 16, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Islam Distorted?, Islamic Terrorism, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Defamation Meme: Shifted and Substituted, Not Removed!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing Serious Implications of Islamophobia


A/HRC/15/53, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of  racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Githu Muigai, on the manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the ongoing serious implications of Islamophobia, for the enjoyment of all rights by their followers.”

The report, issued 07/12/’10,  is in the form of a 19 page pdf file. It consists of an enumerated list of 91 paragraphs. Yesterday I wrote a post about the Rapporteur’s statement introducing the report to the HRC. In this post I will deal with what I consider to be the most important segments of the report.

The report is a reference to five classes of cases “pertaining to Human Rights Council resolution 13/16”.  The cases are classified as follows.

  • acts of violence or discrimination, or incitement thereto, against individuals on the basis of their religion or belief
  • attacks on religious sites
  • religious and ethnic profiling
  • religious symbols
  • negative stereotyping of religions, their followers and sacred persons

Physical assaults and vandalism are covered under domestic laws.  I see no need to get excited about the rare instances. The perpetrators should be found out, prosecuted and punished under existing statutes.

When most criminal acts of a certain type are perpetrated by members of a known set, common sense directs law enforcement’s attention to members of that set.  Most acts of Islamic terrorism are perpetrated by Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40.  Only a Muslim, a damned fool or a traitor would object to giving extra scrutiny to members of that class when screening for security risks in transportation.

Questions concerning religious symbols are raised in  ¶87 on page 18.  “The Special Rapporteur takes the view that the following questions should be kept in mind when assessing the legality of such bans or restrictions:”

  • is the construction, use or display of certain religious symbols constitutive of the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief?

A search of the Qur’an, hadith & Reliance of the Traveller turned up a few mentions of minarets in Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir and hadth; they related to the descent of Jesus. I found no legal requirement for the construction of minarets.  There is blessed good reason for banning them. Dr. Andrew Bostom explains in Europe News.

The venerable Brill Encyclopedia of Islam (EOI) entry on minarets makes plain that minarets are a political statement of Islamic supremacism. Interestingly, given current Turkish Erdogan’s provocative statement while mayor of Istanbul — (the full statement was quoted in a NY Times story by Stephen Kinzer from 2/16/1998: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes are our helmets, the minarets are our swords, and the faithful are our army”), cited by opponents of minaret construction in Switzerland — the observations from the Brill EOI about the Ottoman perspective on minarets are of particular interest.

Refer to Islamic Architecture: Form, Function, and Meaning  By Robert Hillenbrand.  See also Brill’s Encyclopedia of Islam Pg. 227.
The concept of minarets function as a symbol of supremacism is reinforced by the requirement that dhimmis not build as high as Islamic structures. [Reliance of the Traveller, o11.5(5).]

I know of no good cause why the citizens of Switzerland should be compelled to allow the Muslims to lord it over them with minarets as symbols of power and supremacy.  If you  click the link to Reliance o11.5 and read the sixth item, you will discover that where Allah’s writ runs, Christians are prohibited from displaying  crosses and ringing bells.  Reciprocity anyone?

  • Is the ban or restriction discriminatory (in a direct or indirect manner) vis-à-vis specific groups of  the population?

Who else builds minarets?  Are they really analogous to steeples?

  • Is the ban or restriction on the display of religious symbols proportionate to the necessity for security measures by the State concerned?

My view is that this question  applies principally to the issue of banning the niqab.  The impossibility of identifying the wearer creates a security risk in that terrorists and robbers could gain a degree of impunity by cross dressing.  There have been law suits over ID photos taken wearing the niqab.  In that case, the insult to sanity is so obvious as to require no elaboration.

  • Is the ban or restriction on the display of religious symbols necessary to uphold the principle  of equality of men and women?

If that is what you are about, you’d better outlaw Islam altogether because the Qur’an clearly states the superiority of men in 4:34 and made women chattel  in 2:223.  Female inferiority is reinforced in  Sahih Bukhari 1.6.301 (deficient in intelligence & religion)..

  • Does the ban or restriction take into account the individual freedom to wear or not to wear religious symbols?

If a Muslima wants to wear a hijab, big deal. I see no reason to prohibit it; it does no harm, and, like a skunk’s stripes, it serves as a visible warning sign.  The S.R. thinks that  “such questions should be provided by an independent and impartial judiciary and in light of the specific circumstances of each case under
consideration.”

In ¶88, also on pg. 18, the S..R. gets down to the important stuff.

The Special Rapporteur regrets reports of stereotyping which do not contribute to the creation of an environment conducive to constructive and peaceful dialogue among communities. Nonetheless, he recalls that peaceful expressions of opinions and ideas should always be tolerated, as long as they do not fall under the restrictions in articles 19, paragraph 3, and 201 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
  • regrets reports of stereotyping

Is it the reports or the stereotyping he regrets?  Presumably its the latter.

  • which do not contribute to the creation of an environment conducive to constructive and peaceful dialogue
    • among communities

Conversations take place between individuals, not communities.  We ought to be one community, not Balkanized  enclaves. How could there be a constructive and peaceful dialogue when Islam has declared  and is prosecuting war against us?  Has the S.R. bothered to read the Qur’an & hadith?  [Fight those who… until…]

Of course, those banners reading “Freedom Go to Hell”,  “Islam Will Dominate The World” and “Behead Those Who Insult Islam” contribute greatly to “constructive and peaceful dialogue”.  Yeah, right.

We find ¶89 on page 19 of the report.

The Special Rapporteur distinguishes between stereotyping of religions on one hand and of religious followers or sacred persons on the other. With regard to stereotyping of religious followers and of sacred persons, the Special Rapporteur
recalls that the right to freedom of expression may be restricted in order to protect, inter alia, the rights or reputations of others. However, in accordance with articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, any restrictions on the right to freedom of expressions must be established in law; they must pursue a legitimate aim; and they must be proportional to the aim sought to be achieved. As a result, the Special Rapporteur believes that a very high threshold should be met and that the defamatory expressions targeting individuals must have been proven false before they warrant restrictions and sanctions thereon. Moreover, he recommends that sanctions be of a civil nature only and that fines arising from civil defamation procedures respect the principle of proportionality in order not to have a long-lasting and chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression.
  • stereotyping of religious followers

Are they Muslims or ain’t they?  Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and his messenger. If they do that, then Allah’s imperatives and Moe’s sunnah must describe their attitude & conduct.

  • in order to protect, inter alia, the rights

Exactly what right would be protected by prohibiting criticism of Islam?  What right is violated when we reveal the fact that Islam is a predator preying on the human race?  What right do we violate when we expose its mercenary mission and martial method?  Would writing about prostitution, drug & bootlegging rackets violate some right of Mafiosi?

  • a very high threshold should be met
  • defamatory expressions targeting individuals must have been proven false

Should those restrictions apply to the case of Geeert Wilders?  Why was that not mentioned in this report?  Truth is not listed as a possible defense in the Dutch law under which Wilders is being persecuted.

The issue of stereotyping religions comes up in ¶90.

With regard to stereotyping of religions, he recalls that vigorously interrogating and criticizing religious doctrines and their teachings is thoroughly legitimate and constitutes a significant part of the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion or expression. Therefore, the Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that domestic blasphemy laws aiming to protect religions per se can prove counterproductive since they could result in de facto censure of robust examination of
religious doctrines and teachings and of inter- and intra-religious criticism. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur received reports that many of these laws afford different levels of protection to different religions and have often proved to be applied in a discriminatory manner. He was informed of numerous examples of persecution of religious minorities or dissenting believers, but also of atheists and non-theists, as a result of legislation on religious offences or overzealous application of laws that may be fairly neutral on the face of it. Consequently, the Special Rapporteur encourages States to move away from the notion of defamation of religions towards the legal concept of advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence in order to anchor the debate in the relevant existing international legal framework, and in particular that provided in the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
  • vigorously interrogating … religious doctrines constitutes a significant part of the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion or expression.

Where does he recall that from?  Is it not self-evident?

  • persecution of religious minorities or dissenting believers,

Such as the persecutions in Indonesia & Pakistan?

  • advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence

Precisely how will you define and measure that abstract concept?  Self-appointed arbiters such as the Secretary General and the HRC2 assert that Fitna and the Motoons fit that concept.   In fact, Fitna and the Motoons describe incitement, they do not constitute it.

¶91 illustrates the insanity of the basic concept.

Advocacy of racial or religious hatred is a symptom, the external manifestation of something much more profound which is intolerance and bigotry. Intolerance against individuals based on their religion or belief unfortunately continues to be  manifested in different ways. It is therefore critical that States find the most effective ways through which to protect individuals from advocacy of hatred and violence by others. While legislative responses have often been relied on by States to respond to  these phenomena, they are far from being sufficient to bring about real changes in mindsets, perceptions and discourse. Indeed, tackling the root causes of manifestations of religious intolerance affecting individual’s human rights requires a much broader set of policy measures, for example in the areas of education, awareness-raising and interreligious and intercultural dialogue. The Special Rapporteur therefore strongly recommends that States put a strong emphasis on a  broad range of preventive measures which aim at fostering a peaceful society where, inter alia, freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief may be fully exercised by all individuals.
  • Advocacy of racial or religious hatred is a symptom, the external manifestation of something much more profound which is intolerance and bigotry.

The Preface to the  Second Edition of the Calcutta Qur’an Petition lists the numerous ayat which inspire hatred of non-Muslims. Faithful Muslims who go to the Mosque to pray curse us  17 times each day.  That is what they are doing when they recite the first Surah of the Qur’an, they are reminding Allah why he wants to burn us who “earned his wrath” and  “went astray”.

  • advocacy of hatred and violence

Get a clue, for Chrissake!!! “Fight them”, Fight those who” and ”  9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious – see V.2:2). are the real incitement to violence.  Moe gave the believers an example to emulate: “I am  ordered to fight“.

  • a peaceful society where … freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief may be fully exercised by all individuals

The S.R. just described a world without Islam.  Sorry, sucker, there is no religious freedom in Islam.  The penalty for apostasy is death!

08.0 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA)
(0: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief
(kufr) and the worst. It may come about
through sarcasm, as when someone is told, “Trim
your nails, it is sunna,” and he replies, “I would
not do it even if it were,” as opposed to when some
circumstance exists which exonerates him of having
committed apostasy, such as when his tongue
runs away with him, or when he is quoting someone,
or says it out of fear.)
08.1 When a person who has reached puberty
and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he
deserves to be killed.
08.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the
caliph (A: or his representative) 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.

To comprehend the full enormity of that which the OIC seeks to impose upon us through the HRC & GA resolutions which they are seeking to insert into ICERD through a binding protocol, you need to delve further into Shari’ah.  O8.7 contains a list of 20 acts and attitudes which entail apostasy. Any negative statement about  Allah or Moe; any reviling or expression of doubt about Islam or denial of any part of the Qur’an gets a Muslim killed.

That same list of prohibitions is applied to dhimmis by extension. O11.5 lists legal and social restrictions on dhimmis.    O11.10 lists acts which violate the treaty of protection, subjecting the dhimmi who commits them to immediate execution.  Pay special attention to the fifth item in the list: :”(5) or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam. “.

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:
(1) commits adultery with a Muslim woman
or marries her:
(2) conceals spies of hostile forces;
(3) leads a Muslim away from Islam;
(4) kills a Muslim;
(5) or mentions something impermissible
about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and
give him peace), or Islam.

Because it inculcates hatred & incites violence, the intolerant war cult can not be tolerated.  Nor can we tolerate having its blasphemy laws imposed upon us.  We must rise up and raise  loud objections while we are still able to do so without being fined and imprisoned for  defending our lives and  liberty.  For this reason I exhort all lovers of life and liberty to sign the  International Qur’an Petition, copy it, paste it into an email and send it to everyone you can hope to influence with an exhortation to sign and forward it.


Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of
public health or morals.

Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law..

  1. 7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly
    associated with human rights violations and terrorism and, in this regard, regrets the laws or
    administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities,
    thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience;  [¶’5-7 of the pdf. The reference to the Motoons is obvious!]

October 2, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: