Pat Condell Speaks up for Free Speech, Join Him!

Pat Condell has once again turned his wit on the opponents of free speech. He specifically condemns the persecution of Geert Wilders and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.  Austria and Holland are not the only countries with hate speech laws that can condemn innocent critics of Islam.  When warning of an existential threat becomes a crime, justice is a dead issue

Condell rips into corrupt judges and corrupt, cowardly appeasers and journalists.   But if we remain silent, we, too will be complicit in the death of justice and liberty.  We must rise up  as one with a loud voice demanding the dropping of charges against the  innocents unjustly accused and  reimbursement for their legal expenses.  We must demand the repeal of hate speech & blasphemy laws.  We must tell the United Nations to go to Hell with its resolution “Combating Defamation of Religions”, soon to be voted on by the Third Committee.

Free to Believe has the best petition against the resolution:

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

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

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

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

Please click this link and sign it. Spread the word; urge your friends to sign the petiton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWw7H4m389o&feature=player_embedded

Islamophobia: the CAIR Sampler

Barenaked Islam posted a CAIR video featuring  audio clips critical of Islam, labeling them Islamophobia.  Barenaked Islam exploits the definition of Islamophobia.

It isn’t Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you.

Phobia means irrational fear.  Since the death of thousands nearly nine years ago,  we know that fear of Islam is rational.

Those who have sampled Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition, biography, exegesis and jurisprudence know that revulsion is a rational reaction to Islamic doctrine & practice.

The video is entitled “Islamophobia A growing problem”.   What is problematic?  A slowly growing segment of our society is becoming aware of Islam, the hatred it inculcates and the violence it sanctifies  and incites.

CAIR does not want us to know that Islam is intrinsically violent; that it has declared and is prosecuting  war and subversion against us.

The unspoken subtext is “Islamophobia” breeds intolerance, contempt and assault”.   Intolerance of the intolerable is a good thing.  Islam can not be tolerated because it is intolerant, supremacist and genocidally aggressive.

Knowing the truth about Islam and Muslims, awareness of the fact that we need to get rid of them does not imply assault, murder or arson.   Those acts are crimes in our society, and  offenders are prosecuted.    Reasonable people are not advocating murdering Muslims or bombing Mosques.  We  advocate outlawing Islam, closing the Mosques and deporting the Muslims for our protection and the preservation of our way of life.

The video begins with a clip from a Dan Fanelli  campaign spot.  The narrator says “Rising Islamophobia in our nation endangers the rights of  American Muslims and creates unjustified fear and hostility towards Islam.”

What rights are endangered?  How are they endangered?  Is there a right not to be recognized as a threat to our system of government and way of life?

Able bodied adult male Muslims who are not indebted nor enslaved are bound by a “religious obligation” classified as fard al-kifaya, to engage in attacks against nearby disbelievers.  That obligation is specified in Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9.1.

The second segment begins with this heading “U.S. Senator James Inhofe advocating profiling of Middle Eastern men when speaking at a Senate hearing. ”

The clip shows the Senator saying “I believe in racial and ethnic profiling.”

CAIR is attacking common sense.  All of the recent Islamic terror attacks were perpetrated by young Muslim males.   Anyone not suspicious of young men from areas of the world where Islam predominates  is several cards short of a full deck.

When it comes to Islamic terrorism, Muslims are the natural prime suspects.  Lets solve this problem by excluding all Muslims from all mass transit.

Congresswoman Sue Myrick is up next  “there are people who literally are willing to blow themselves up like this guy did–to commit jihad because they believe in a bigger cause and that cause is what they want to do to us: they want to destroy western democracies, they want to bring down America, they want us to live by their rules.”

CAIR’s  objection to her honest statement of fact speaks volumes about CAIR and about Islam.

Next we are treated to a sign, outside the Dove World Church, which says “Islam is of the devil.”.  The narrator says “Anti-Islam rhetoric has become more explicit and more extreme since the 9/11 attacks.”

No mention of relevance or veracity, just how explicit and extreme it is.  We are to assume that Islam and Christianity share a common deity since both are monotheistic. If there is only one deity, they must be the same.  But “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son…”. Contrast that with Allah, who rubbed Adam’s shoulders to produce one group of people for the fire and another for Paradise.  In Surah al-Anfal 67, Allah told Moe that he could not hold captives for ransom until he had “made a great slaughter”. He said Moe wanted booty, but Allah wanted to get Moe into Paradise.  Does the Christian God require genocide?   If  the Dove World Church believes and wants to tell the world that Allah is demonic, that is their right, ain’t it?

Next we have Congressman Peter King saying “Unfortunately, we have too many Mosques in this country, there is too many people sympathetic to radical Islam, we should be looking at them more carefully. ”

I view that as a rare episode of candor, of which we need more, not less.   CAIR views it as “Islamophobia”.

The narrator says “anti-Islam views  expressed by elected officials, can severely impact the ability of American Muslims to engage in the positive civic participation  that is every American’s right.”.  That statement comes over the image of Geert Wilders speaking at an American synagogue.

“Admit that Islam is not a religion, admit that Islam is a totalitarian ideology, in other words, the rights to religious freedom do not apply to the totalitarian ideology called Islam.”

That is a pretty tough admission to make, and, to  the best of my knowledge, no American elected officials have made it.

The fact is that Islam is not a religion; it is a way of life: intra-species predation.  Islam’s religious component serves as a control mechanism to motivate Muslims to go to war and as a camouflage to prevent us from recognizing it as a predator.

The caption for the next segment  is “Right-wing commentator Ann Coulter”.  She says: “I said we are at war with all these fanatics and we should invade their countries, kill their leaders  and convert them to Christianity.”.

Ann just told you why we are losing in Afghanistan & Iraq: they are still Muslim.  That is a fatal fact, too hot for most to suggest, far to hot for politicians to state explicitly.

Next up: “Christian televangelist Pat Robertson”, who cuts loose with this classic remark.  “…then if the religion involves beheading infidels and pouring boiling oil down their throats”….

Islam is not a religion, but it does involve beheading infidels, as we saw in the case of Nick Berg and others.  The boiling oil comes later, after we arrive in the Hell fire.  But the decapitation is commanded in Surah al-anfal 12.

Pastor Rod Parsley is up next. “Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world.”

Horrible! Pastor Parsley confused deen with religion, which is only part of the deen.  We see Islamic advertisements that claim Jesus Christ as a “Prophet of Islam”.  But those advertisements do not tell us that, according to their scripture, Jesus was not crucified, did not die and was not resurrected.  Nor do they tell us that he will return to lead the Muslims in battle and the final genocide against us.   Lying is as much by what they conceal as what they dissemble.

Franklin Gaham is up next. “True Islam can not be practiced in this country. You can’t beat your wife,  you cannot murder your children if you think they have committed adultery or something like that, which they do practice in some…”

True, Islam does permit wife beating and honoricide. It also permits having as many as four wives at once.  It permits a Muslim to divorce his wife by saying “I divorce you” three times.   All of those things are contrary to American law.

Next up, saving the best for next to last, we have Pamela Geller, among signs endorsing liberty, memorializing the slain  and condemning Codoba House,  telling it as it is.

“This is an insult, it is demeaning, this is humiliating, that you would build a shrine to the very ideology that inspired the attacks of 9/11”.

Geller is followed by a man I do not recognize saying “This house of evil will be the birthplace of the next terrorist event.”

Perhaps, but the plot could, and likely will be hatched somewhere else. But the fact remains, that in every Mosque, Jews and Christians are cursed five times  every day when they recite the first Surah of the Qur’an as part of  their prayers.  Fifteen Muslims died in a Mosque in Afghanistan when the bomb they were building detonated prematurely.

Our narrator returns.  “Whether it is anti-Muslim commentators, extremist religious leaders,  Muslim bashing politicians or fear mongering dvds sent to millions of American homes, Islam and the American Muslim community are being targeted by hate and intolerance.  But with your help, Islamophobia can be challenged and overcome through education and understanding.  ”

The wise gentlemen who founded this nation gave us something most of the world lacks: the right of free inquiry and expression.  we are free to  investigate institutions and issues; free to share what we learn.  Our founders knew that the right to accurate criticism of government policy and candidates for office is an absolute requirement for the preservation of liberty.  If we can not identify threats to our liberty  and accurately describe them, we can not preserve liberty.

Islam presents a clear, proximate & persistent threat to our liberty.  Islam, through the offices of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, seeks to criminalize all criticism of Islam.    Islamic law forbids, under penalty of death, the reviling of Allah, Moe & Islam.  If you are a conquered Christian living in Egypt or Pakistan, any negative statement ab out Islam, true or not, gets you tortured and killed.

Every year, they ram “defamation of religion” resolutions through the UNHRC & General Assembly.   Those resolutions specifically condemn and demand the criminalization of all association of Islam & terrorism.  Casting terror is sanctified by 3:151 and  commanded by 8:12.  It is exemplified by 33:26-27.  Moe bragged about it, as recorded in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220.   If they get their way, they’ll be able to fine me and throw me in prison for publishing this fatal fact.

In November, the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Contemporary Standards will meet again to formulate their proposed protocol to ICERD. The protocol will have the force of law, trumping the First Amendment.  We absolutely must stop those fiends from stifling free speech!  We must rise up as one, disrespectfully demanding the preservation of our hard won rights.  Once lost, recovering those rights will be a difficult, bloody, costly and probably impossible quest.

It is a little know fact that unenforced provisions of ICERD, ICCPR & \CPPCG require that Islam be proscribed by law.   We need to obtain enforcement of those human rights covenants before Islam can  modify them to use against us.   We have one instrument we can use:

International Qur’an Petition

For the love of liberty, sign that petition, copy it, paste it into an email and send it to everyone you can influence. Urge the recipients to sign and forward it. Make it go viral.  Put a link to it on your blog or web site.   If you won’t do that, you don’t value your life and liberty enough to deserve them.

It was not without good reason that Moe warned his companions not to carry the Qur’an into Dar ul-harb .

Malik’s Muwatta Book 21, Number 21.2.7:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar said that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade travelling with a Qur’an in the land of the enemy. Malik commented, “That is out of fear that the enemy will get hold of it.”

They need to make it illegal to criticize Islam.  We need to stop them.
What’s Wrong With Islam/Muslims.chm contains what you need to know about Islam, the documentation of the facts revealed above.

• Ad Hoc Committee On Compelmentary standards (126.1K pdf) Compiled from a series of blog posts about a proposed protocol to ICERD which will criminalize all criticism of Islam. The cmte meets from Oct. 19-30 ’09 to write the protocol.
• Ad Hoc Cmte On Complementary Stds 125KB pdf compiled from several blog posts.
• Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document 120KB pdf  containing Google’s Translation of the French language draft plus links to references and blog posts.
• “Defamation” Resolutions: Restricted Liberty Impaired Rights 01/04/10  Several excellent articles have been written about the (unintended?) consequences of the UN’s resolutions Combating Defamation of Religions. Now two courageous writers have added a new dimension to the discussion by generalizing about the consequences on the ground and naming the prime offender.
• Combating Defamation of Religions: the Substance 12/20/09  The final form of the resolution.
• Defamation || Negative Stereotyping 11/05/09  What’s the difference?!
• Defamation of Religions Draft 10-29-09 Link to and dissection of the new resolution  plus extensive links to previous resolutions & related documents.

The Persecution of Hector Aleem Will be Your Persecution

How would you feel if your loved one was incarcerated, tortured and threatened with death on trumped up charges of  “blasphemy?  What would be going through your mind if he disappeared from jail and could not be found?  How would you pay escalating legal fees?

That is the situation of the family of Hector Aleem.  Christians do not get Justice where Allah’s writ runs.  Pakistan’s blasphemy law derives moral support and legitimacy from the  annual resolutions “combating defamation of religions” passed by the General Assembly and Human Rights Council.

OIC is striving to convert those resolutions into binding international law so that we can be subjected to persecution just as Hector Aleem is.  The time for action is now, before their Ad Hoc Cmte. meets in November.  What will you do about it?  Will you sign and publicize the International Qur’an Petition?  A good counter attack is the best defense.  This is the only counter attack available to us.  If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

The latest update from the family of Hector Aleem is reproduced below, unedited.

Mehwish Aleem June 19 at 3:07pm

Hello Everyone,

Like we have told you before that Hector Aleem has been disppeared for almost one week. But now we came to know that the terrorist organization Sunni Tehreek took him with the help of FIA (Fedral Investigation Agency) and ldged another case against him. I really dont know his physical situation because if they took him then they must have beaten him. So I will tell you his situation as soon as I get any news. we just came to know that Hector Aleem is back in jail today. We need to bring him out as soon as possible because now we are sure that he is not even safe inside the jail. And if we dont do anything fast then these kind of things can happen again. Like we told you before Sunni Tehreek is a very powerful terrorist organization in Pakistan which is against Hector Aleem.

Here is the news about Sunni Tehreek: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=602955&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=298776303670&id=1554906133&ref=pf

You can do anything you can to bring Hector Aleem out of the prison. Those who can donate can donate through pay pal or anyother way and those who cannot donate then please just pray for us and for daddy. And those who can call, mail or email Canadian Embassy for Asylum can do that too. We would really appreciate your help, Your Moral and Practical support.

If you want to donate through pay pal then here is the link: http://tinyurl.com/hectoraleem

And if you want to donate through any other way then please contact Mohammad Shouman who is a group admin.

And also keep writing to Canadian Embassy in Islamabad for the Asylum of Hector Aleem and his family, you can write by yourself or you can print the petition, get it signed by your friends and family and send it to Canadian Embassy in Islamabad Pakistan.

Here is the link to the Petition: http://hectoraleem.blogspot.com/2010/06/write-to-canadian-embassy-in-islamabad.html

God Bless You All

Keep Praying for Hector Aleem and his family

Defamation of Religions: World Opoinion Survey

World Public Opinion reported the results of an international survey of opinion on defamation of religions taken between April 25 and July 9, ’09. As I would expect, support for free expression is greatest in western democracies and support for censorship is greatest in Islamic nations.

A five page pdf file revealing the survey’s methodology has one surprise: the U.S.A. was surveyed on line.

In the United States, the poll was an online survey drawn from a nationally representative sample of the Knowledge Networks online panel. This panel is probabilistically-based, selected from the population of US telephone households and subsequently provided with an Internet connection if needed.

Results:

img: chart of results

The Methodology Report reveals that Hong Kong & Taiwan results were excluded from the averages, but does not explain the exclusions.  There is a trend toward heavy coverage of urban areas, which could result in a more liberal result.

Several nations stood out from the crowd with high levels of indecision/non-response.

Russia	26
Ukraine	30
Iraq	17
Indonesia	20

How would they have responded in an anonymous, non-confrontational setting?   What effect, if any, will this report of majority support for free expression have on the General Assembly vote on the Defamation of Religions resolution?

If you are on the side of freedom of expression, these on line petitions need your support Sign them and urge everyone you can hope to influence to sign them.

• Free To Believe
• ACLJ
  

To join a counter attack in the war of ideas, sign and promote the International Qur’an Petition.

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

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

Other relevant  documents of interest:

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

Ad Hoc Cmte: Iranian Submission

Outline for the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards Consultations

An additional mechanism, the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards was created by the Human Rights Council in 2006 to fill gaps in CERD, and to provide new normative standards aimed at combating all forms of contemporary aspects of racism.

The committee’s mission is to write new international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam. They solicited suggestions from the member nations to get the process started.

The Iranian submission begins on page 12 of the pdf. and ends on page 17. Although capturing the attitude & meaning of the document through excerpts is not satisfactory, I will not reproduce the entire five page submission here. You can click through to the pdf file and enter 12 in the page window to go directly to the full text of the submission.

The pdf is a scanned document, requiring the use of ocr to cull excerpts. Unfortunately, the printer which created the document needs a head cleaning, and the plate on which it was scanned is dusty, so that ocr was extremely difficult. I have therefore run the spelling checker on the excerpts, they may deviate slightly from the original, but care has been taken to avoid changing the meaning of the text. [Emphasis added.]

The Iranian submission is not novel, it rehashes malicious malarkey from previous resolutions. The following documents were referenced in the text.

• General Assembly resolution 62/154 on combating defamation of religions
• General Assembly resolution 55/23 on Dialogue Among Civilizations
• security Council resolution 1624(2005)
• UDHR
• ICCPR
• International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights
• DDPA
• Special Rapport on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (AIHRC/6/6)

They are off to a fast start in their Introduction, asserting that Islamophobia is a growing trend, becoming pervasive and often officially condoned.

The growing trend of defamation of religions is arising from the following factors: the conflation of race, culture and religion, concept of clash of civilizations and religions, all these provides fertile soil for the defamation of religions.
And also on the fight against terrorism, based on defense of national identity and security, it is reduced to religious
dimension.

Note the clause which I emphasized. Who is it that conflates race with religion? If you can’t answer that question, re-read the initial post in this series :
Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, paying close attention to the quote from the report of the African Regional Conference in preparation for the Durban Review.

Unfortunately, insults and intolerance against Islam are being provided intellectual justification by Western scholars
and political lobbies who espouse anti-Islamic agendas, hence lending support to ideological violence against
Muslims. Sophisticated slogans are used to provoke systematic insults against Islam. This phenomenon reflects
the Islarnophobia which afflicts segments of western society.

This paragraph inverts cause and effect. We developed anti-Islamic agendas precisely because of Islam’s anti-Christian & anti-western doctrines, agendas & actions. Our accurate descriptions of Islamic doctrines & practices are labled insults and intolerance. Accurate and well documented descriptions of Islamic sanctification & mandate of genocidal conquest and terrorism are labled “insults” and “intolerance”.
The last paragraph of the introduction is severely overloaded by implicit reference to the documents listed and linked above.

Lack of action to prevent the reprinting of blasphemous caricatures, and indifference in airing the inflammatory documentary against the holy Quran will be perceived as manifestation of insincerity towards the principles and objectives of various efforts within the United Nations system aiming at promoting understanding and respect among cultures and civilizations. [Links added.]

It should now be clear to you that the Iranian agenda includes criminalizing criticism of Islam, specifically the Danish Cartoons and Geert Wilders’ Fitna.

The cartoons depict Muhammad as a terrorist, which, by his own admission, he was. He never threw a bomb, because explosives were invented after he died. he used the primitive weaponry available in the seventh century to terrorize his victims with ruthless slaughter. If you do not comprehend this fact, open your Qur’an to 33:26, 59:2 & 59:13 and read them carefully.

Fitna demonstrates the obvious connection between Islamic doctrine enshrined in the Qur’an. This fact is documented in another blog post. It is extremely unlikely that anyone else will reveal to you the source of Islam’s intense determination to criminalize criticism of itself. I will: It comes from Islamic law, codified in Reliance of the Traveller. Book O, which treats of “Justice”, includes an outline of the conditions imposed upon dhimmis, who were “people of the book” subjugated by Muslims under a “treaty of protection”. Chapter 11.10 lists five acts which violate the treaty of protection and subject the dhimmi to immediate execution. Here is the fifth item in that list.

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

The perceptive reader will want to know what is impermissible to mention. O8.7 lists 20 items which entail apostasy, and describes the list as nearly endless. Here are a few relevant items from that list.

-1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,” or “I am Allah”-unless one’s tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

-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;

-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

-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;

-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). )

By now you must be wondering about the penalty. Islamic law has that covered, too.

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.

Islamic law is clear on its face: any criticism of Allah or his Messenger gets you killed. The Ad Hoc Committee On Complementary Standards is only the latest tool developed in pursuit of that objective.

Under the heading of “Legal Aspects”, Iran describes the cartoons & Fitna as “inconsistent with the spirit of the UN Charter” and various resolutions.

The elimination of discrimination and the protection against Intolerance is in part a matter of legal protection.

They jabber on with quotes about universal freedom, equality and dignity, without finding anything relevant to the matter at hand. The next paragraph is mired in excrement.

Crucially, according to- article 20, paragraph.2 of the ICCPR, ” any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law” This provision represents a clear limitation to-the night to fee speech which according to article 19 of the ICCPR carries with it special duties and responsibilities.

The cartoons do not advocate hatred, nor do they incite discrimination, hostility or violence. The same is true of Fitna. Few will perceive the irony in Islam’s specious assertion: it is their own scripture, tradition & jurisprudence which advocates hatred and incites violence. If Article 20 were to be enforced, the Qur’an, hadith & Shari’ah would be banned as incitement to violence!

The committee on civil and Political Rights in its general comment 11 provided that these required prohibitions are fully compatible with the right to freedom of expression as contained in Article 19, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities. This is clear indication that human rights instruments recognize provisions against incitement to religions hatred as being a completely legitimate- safeguard against the abuse of the right to free speech.

Iran is asserting that accurately describing Allah’s genocidal Jihad imperatives which are found in Surahs Al-Anfal & At-Taubah and confirmed in Sahih Bukhari’s Books of Jihad, Khumus & Expedition and codified in Reliance of the Traveller Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraphs 8 & 9 must be legally prohibited as “incitement to religious hatred”. Islamic obedience to those imperatives has resulted in 270*10⁶ premature deaths in the last 1400 years but we must be prevented, by judicial penalties, from mentioning it.

Identifying the enemy and describing his doctrines is characterized as an abuse of free speech. This is nothing less than the aggressor’s program for depriving us of the ability to defend ourselves against his aggression.

The last section of the submission is under the heading of Programme of Action.

In sum, the right to freedom of expression should be exercised with the responsibilities and limitations as prescribed by law. The international community should initiate a global dialogue to promote a culture of tolerance and peace based on respect for human rights and cultural diversity and urges states, NGOs, religious bodies and media to support and promote such a dialogue. Developing the human rights language to address emerging issues such as defamation of religions was an important step forward that is of interest not only to Muslims but to all the internatioual community.

Our freedom of expression must not include mention of Islam’s aggressive doctrines & practices: conquest, genocide & terrorism. A culture of tolerance and peace means being led, dumb like sheep, to the slaughter.

Islamic Republic of Iran urges the Ad hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards to call upon the States to stop the publication of blasphemous caricatures, Elms and media as well as the campaigns for anti-Islamic regulations to take all possible legal and administrative measures to prevent continuation of these deliberate offensive acts, which impinge greatly on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion of the followers of Islam.

They want to add wording to ICERD to criminalize every criticism of Islam. How in Hell does anything we write or say impinge on the liberty of Muslims? Why must they be allowed to continue in the arrogant assumption that they have a divine right and mission to kill, enslave, rape, pillage & plunder us?

• Ad Hoc Cmte: Iranian Submission
• AdHoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission
• AdHoc Cmte USA Submission
• AdHoc Committee: African Submission
• Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper
• Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards

Defamation of Religion: Moral Clarity

I am pleased to learn that there is at least one competent Australian remaining. The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies published this excellent essay which clarifies the philosophy behind the right of free expression. I reproduced its first two paragraphs as a teaser.

The idiocy of “defamation of religion”

Russell Blackford

Metamagician and the Hellfire Club

Posted: Feb 17, 2009

Anti-liberal actors in the international arena, such as the Muslim states of the Middle East, are pursuing a path of attempting to suppress what they call “defamation of religion”. Their campaign is achieving some success, and I believe we must take it very seriously.

The whole idea of defamation of religion is nonsense. Taken literally, it would mean that I could not utter any falsehood that is damaging to the reputation of a religion (so, it might lead people to leave the religion or doubt its doctrines, or fail to be convinced to convert to it). But a religion has no right to flourish, be believed, retain adherents, gain converts, or anything of the sort. On the contrary, it is in the public interest that the truth and credibility of various religions be tested continually, and it is quite within my rights to try to convert people from their current religion to my religion of choice or to an anti-religious position. Much like political ideologies, religions have to take their own chances. Many things will be said for and against various religions, and some of those things will not be true, even if they are said sincerely.

Defamation Resolutions: Enough Already!

I learned about the existence of this CNS News article through a link at Eye On the UN.

UN Passes Islamic ‘Defamation’ Measure, But Critics Hail ‘Backlash’
Thursday, December 18, 2008
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

In that article, I found a link to a statement by four human rights experts, named in the last page of the document.

International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression
JOINT DECLARATION ON DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS, AND ANTI-TERRORISM AND
ANTI-EXTREMISM LEGISLATION

Having read that statement, I now endorse it, reserving the exception of the following quoted points, to each of which I dissent. [Emphasis added.]

Recognising the importance to democracy, as well as to holding social institutions accountable, of open debate about all ideas and social phenomena in society and the right of all to be able to manifest their culture, religion and beliefs in practice;

Since Islam sanctifies & mandates genocidal¹ conquest² using terrorism³ as a battle tactic, manifesting its practice is a wrong, not a right.

The definition of terrorism, at least as it applies in the context of restrictions on freedom of
expression, should be restricted to violent crimes that are designed to advance an ideological, religious, political or organised criminal cause and to influence public authorities by inflicting terror on the public.

Advocacy of casting terror, incitement to cast terror and glorification of the act & those who perform it are essential to the perpetuation of terrorism and must be condemned as part and parcel of it.

The criminalisation of speech relating to terrorism should be restricted to instances of intentional incitement to terrorism, understood as a direct call to engage in terrorism which is directly responsible for increasing the likelihood of a terrorist act occurring, or to actual participation in terrorist acts (for example by directing them). Vague notions such as providing communications support to terrorism or extremism, the ‘glorification’ or ‘promotion’ of terrorism or extremism, and the mere repetition of statements by terrorists, which does not itself constitute incitement, should not be criminalised.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. Moral condemnation of conquest in which men are killed, their widows raped⁴ and orphans sold into slavery⁵ is not consequent upon the terror inflicted, it is consequent upon malum in se; the pure evil of aggression against innocent persons. Sanctification of conquest, with a divine mandate to perform it until the entire globe is dominated by Islam⁶, would be sufficient cause to outlaw the propagation of Islam, even in the absence of its 1398 year history of rapine.

Not withstanding those reservations, I endorse the rest of the statement, particularly the following:

The concept of ‘defamation of religions’ does not accord with international standards regarding
defamation, which refer to the protection of reputation of individuals, while religions, like all beliefs, cannot be said to have a reputation of their own.

Restrictions on freedom of expression should be limited in scope to the protection of overriding individual rights and social interests, and should never be used to protect particular institutions, or abstract notions, concepts or beliefs, including religious ones.

Restrictions on freedom of expression to prevent intolerance should be limited in scope to advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

International organisations, including the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights
Council, should desist from the further adoption of statements supporting the idea of ‘defamation of religions’.

In my opinion, that last sentence was poorly written, introducing an ambiguity which should not be allowed to persist. The named bodies should rescind their previous resolutions as listed in the statement, and refrain from passing further resolutions condemning or attempting to outlaw criticism of Islam.

1. Genocide:
   1. until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. [8:67]
   2. smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them [47:4]
   3. those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed [Abu Dawud 38.4390]
2. Conquest:
   1. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [8:39]
   2. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah … among the people of the Scripture … until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [9:29]
   3. The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
3. Terrorism:
   1. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve [3:151]
   2. …I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes. [8:12]
   3. Allah brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts [33:26]
4. Rape:
   1. …Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess…. [4:24]
   2. …”We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. … [Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459]
5. Slavery: and a group (of them) you made captives. [33:26]
6. Global domination:
   1. …) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]…. [8:39]
   2. …to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it). [9:33]
   3. The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book