Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu on Islamophobia at OIC-CFM 39


Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu on Islamophobia at OIC-CFM 39

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

[All emphasis and links added.]





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




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




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




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

 


Islamophobia

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

peace and security

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

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

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

 

defamation
of religions

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

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

Previous resolutions complained bitterly about
associating Islam with terrorism:

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

10.
Also emphasizes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as
this

may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom
of religion

or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned;

————————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

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

defamatory film ‘Innocence of
Muslims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to Louis Palme for sending us the following references:

Was the “Innocence of Muslims” video trailer accurate?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

pg.  83 on pdf 65


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Article
Eight
: The Slogan of the Hamas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

The Innocent Prophet

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

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

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

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

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


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

Yudhoyono @ UN: Spew of Feces


 

Lets get right down to detail; the important part. For the rest, follow
this link:

http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/67/ID_en.pdf

At the same time we can also evolve a
universal culture of mutual tolerance

and mutual appreciation of one another’s religious convictions. In such
a world, the

voice of the moderates-the voice of reason and compassion-would be heard

clearly over the din of prejudice and bigotry. In a global regime of
compassion and

tolerance, no war is possible.

As a nation that celebrates its diversity of culture
and religions, Indonesia

calls for mutual respect and understanding among peoples of different
faiths.

Despite initiatives undertaken by states at the United Nations and
other forums, the

defamation of religions persists. We have seen yet another one of its
ugly face in

the film “Innocence of Muslims” that is now causing an international
uproar.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights underlines that in exercising
their

freedom of expression, everyone must observe morality and public order.
Freedom

of expression is therefore not absolute.

Hence, I call for an international instrument to
effectively prevent incitement

to hostility or violence based on religions or beliefs. This
instrument, a product of

international consensus, shall serve as a point of reference that the
world

community must comply with.

tolerance

If anyone seeks another religion, it will never be accepted of him.  Muslims
are the best of peoples as they bring us to Islam with chains on our necks. Christians are prohibited from
public processions, ringing bells, praying  or reading the Gospel
aloud in public and building churches.  Tolerance is a one way
street; it ain’t mutural!

respect

Respect is given where respect is due; we had to
earn it, so must you.  I can not respect a deity who demands genocide as the price of admission to
Paradise.  I can not respect a Profit whose prime motivating
factor was loot.  I can not respect a Profit who raided
passive settlements, murdered the men and raped their widows.  I can not respect a
Profit who revealed situational scripture to give divine
sanction to his sexual proclivities.

defamation of religions

That which is infamous can not be defamed. Moe deliberately built a reputation of barbarian rapine
to improve the efficiency of his extortion letters.

Innocence of Muslims

morality

Moe married a six year old girl, consummating the
marriage when she was nine years old.  He arranged the marriage and divorce of his adopted
son so that he could have his bride for his own harem.  He
commissioned the murder of his critics.  There is no immorality
depicted in the video that moe did not perform.

public order

The creator and publisher of the video did not
breach public order: Muslim rabble, roused by rabid Imams, breached
public order.

freedom of expression

Free speech being necessary to a citizens of a
representative republic so that they can honestly discuss public policy
issues with impunity,  our courts proscribe only words
deliberately designed to initiate panic or fighting.  The video
embedded above does not fall into either of those categories.
This blog post must also be legal because it is necessary that we be
able to identify, describe and warn against threats to our life and
liberty, which Islam presents.

prohibit incitement

By your standard, Islam, its canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis
& jurisprudence, along with its institutions must be banned.

September 27, 2012 Posted by | Freedom Of Speech, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

United Nations Response to Innocence of Muslims: Treason Against Humanity!


Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, President of the 66th
session of the General Assembly spoke September 12, 2012 about
defamation of religious symbols. I will extract the most crucial words
and phrases while providing a link so that curious readers can
access the entire article.

  • condemns and deplores in the strongest terms
    • defamation of
    • religions
    • religious symbols
  • such
    acts amount to

    •  incitement to hatred
      • international instability
      • violate the purposes and principles of the UN Charter
  • enhance dialogue and
    broaden understanding

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s spokesman had remarks September 13.

  • condemns the hateful film
    •  deliberately designed to sow
      • bigotry
      • bloodshed

Secretary-General’s remarks to Opening
Session of the General Assembly High-Level Forum on the Culture of
Peace 08/14/12

  • hateful
  • disgusting
  • It is shameful to exploit the fundamental right to free
    expression by deliberately provoking bigotry and bloodshed

Secretary-General’s remarks at the Church of the
Holy Family 09-17-12

  • hatred and provocation
  • priest or lama  … rabbi or imam
    • standard bearers of
      • reason and respect
  • People everywhere look to religious leaders for guidance, support
    and direction.

    • promoting tolerance
      • mutual understanding
      • mutual respect

At the opening of Session 67, Ban addressed the
issue again.

  • incidents of
    • intolerance
    • hatred
  • We all need to speak up in favour of
    • mutual respect
    • understanding
      • of the
        • values
        • beliefs

I am embedding the video here in case you have not yet viewed it.
I want you to ignore the lousy casting, acting and production values;
concentrate on the conceptual content.

The video does not direct its audience to take any
action.  Viewers are not exhorted to hate Muslims, deface tomb
stones or destroy mosques.  It simply presents information about
current persecution of Copts in Egypt with impunity & official
complicity,  and the character & works of the founder of
Islam.

This post is not concerned with the truth or fallacy
of the conceptual content, that issue is detailed and documented with
quotes from and links to Islam’s canon in another blog post:  http://dajjal.posterous.com/innocence-of-muslims-true-or-false-you-be-the
.

Islam divides the world into two houses: Dar
ul-Islam and Dar ul-Harb. The house of war is wherever Allah’s writ
does not run.  Muslims are at war against it to total conquest or
the end of the world, whichever come first.  Those who deny the fact of existential conflict,
seek to conceal it and distract our attention from it also seek to
prevent us from sounding a warning of impending danger so that our
nations will be unwilling or unable to defend us.  They are
traitors to the human race.   I shall proceed with the task of
contradicting the traitors point by point.

defamation of religions

The video’s subject is Moe, the founder of Islam;
neither a religion nor a religious symbol, Moe is a historical
personage who has been in his grave since 632. Moe has no knowledge of
the video, and is not harmed by it in any way.

Islam can not be defamed; it is already infamous,
having caused the premature deaths of an estimated 270*106
innocent people
.  A few statesmen discerned the truth about
it.  Did Montesquieu defame Islam?  Should he have
been prosecuted and imprisoned or beheaded for uttering &
publishing this?

From
the characters of the Christian and Mahometan religions, we ought,
without any further examination, to embrace the one and reject the
other: for it is much easier to prove that religion ought to humanise
the manners of men than that any particular religion is true.

It
is a misfortune to human nature when religion is given by a conqueror.
The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon
men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded.

Did John Q. Adams defame Islam? Should he have been
prosecuted and decapitated for uttering and publishing this?

“In
the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the
lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, […..] Adopting from
the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and
of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the
rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the
sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the
fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the
allowance of polygamy; and 
he
declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his
religion, against all the rest of mankind
.
THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST.- TO EXALT THE BRUTAL
OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE…. Between these two
religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred
years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant … While the
merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish
motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good
will towards men.”

Did Winston Churchill defame Islam? Should he have
been prosecuted and decapitated for uttering and publishing this?

How
dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as
hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The
effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly
systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of
property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A
degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the
next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every
woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a
child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of
slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among
men.

Individual
Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion
paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the
world.
 Far
from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing
faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising
fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is
sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it
had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as
fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Will anyone consider the possibility that those
statesmen read the Qur’an and studied history sufficiently to know of
the havoc wreaked by Muhammad and the four rightfully guided
caliphs?  Why did Adams call Moe a false prophet? Why did he
declare Islam inimical to peace? Were these hatemongers? Were they
attempting to incite riots and provoke international conflict or
warning against that which is so engaged?

Islam stands or falls on the foundation of one man:
Moe, who, alone, heard the revelations from Jibril and recited them to
his companions.  If Moe is proven to be a false prophet who
attributed to God words not spoken by him, then Islam must eventually
crumble like a vampire exposed to bright sunlight.  Open Sahih Bukhari to 6.60.311 to obtain a clue.

incitement to hatred

Has it ever crossed their weak little minds that
Islam should be an object of intense hatred?  Was it wrong to hate
Nazism in WW2 or Communism in the Cold War?  Can any sentient and
moral person know about the Hindu, Assyrian & Armenian genocides
without hating Islam?

What if Moe really was a child molester?  What
if he really did have Kinana tortured to death before raping his
widow?  What if his henchmen tied Um Qirfa’s legs to two camels
and drive them in opposite directions?  Should Moe and the crime
syndicate he founded be objects of hatred or not?   Click
these links to Qur’an verses, then tell me, in a comment, who incited
hatred and violence.

international instability

Islam’s critics are accused of threatening world
peace. What is the true threat to world peace?  Will you obtain a
clue?  J.Q. Adams gave us one earlier.

violates UN Charter

How could publication of a short video by a private
individual acting on his own accord, without complicity of any
government agency violate the UN Charter?  Is it possible that
Muslim mobs, attacking Embassies and murdering an Ambassador with
government complicity violated the Charter?

enhance dialogue

Is it possible to have a real dialogue with
Muslims?  Can Pope Benedict discuss Surah At-Taubah with the
Sheiks of Al-Azhar at Cairo? Does anyone recall “A Common Word Between
Us and You
“?  I created one blog to deliar that camel crap!

broaden understanding

Anyone who is ignorant of Islam’s founding,
doctrines and practices will have a better understanding thereof after
viewing “Innocence of Muslims” and might even be stimulated to read the
Qur’an & hadith to which I have linked.

condemns the hateful film

I condemn the hateful man it depicts and the
continuing criminal enterprise he founded: Islam. The film is truthful,
not hateful.  Islam is false, hateful and predatory.

deliberately designed to sow

bigotry

Bigotry is a hidebound adherence to prejudiced
opinion in the face of the facts.  The facts about Islam, exposed
in the video, make it worthy of condemnation. Your failure to condemn
Islam is bigotry. Your condemnation of the video is bigotry.  The
UN is led by bigots.

bloodshed

Where in “Innocence of Muslims” is the call to
arms?  Where is the exhortation to wage war?  But they are in
the Qur’an;  can you obtain a clue?  I provided a list of
links to it above.  Follow the links to Surah Al-Anfal 8 &
Surah At-Taubah 9 to obtain a clue.  The riots do not flow from
the video, they flow from the mosques at Jumah Salat and from state run
or state sanctioned mass media.

hateful

What is hateful about “Innocence of Muslims”?
Have you ever heard about Wala wal Bara?
It is “love and hate for the sake of Allah”. Allah loves those who
“fight in his cause” and hates everyone who is not Muslim.  Get a
clue.

disgusting

Sentient and rational viewers, not bigots, will be
disgusted by the reality of Moe’s character & actions and the
doctrines & practices of the crime syndicate he disguised as a
religion.  Bigots are disgusted by exposure of Islam as a
continuing crime against humanity.

shameful:

“It is shameful to exploit the fundamental right to
free expression by deliberately provoking bigotry and bloodshed”.

free expression

In a representative republic, freedom of speech is
required to facilitate open discussion of political issues,
personalities and affairs of state. The threat of war is one of those
issues which must be discussed freely, without fear of assault or
persecution.  Islam inculcates hatred and incites violence;
promising its acolytes eternal bliss in Allah’s celestial bordello if
they go to war and threatening them with eternal damnation if they
shirk.  We can not successfully defend ourselves against the real,
proximate and persistent threat of Islamic aggression which began when
we gained independence from England, without honest and open discussion
of the doctrines & practices of Islam.  Our first foreign wars
were in defense of our merchantmen against Islamic piracy.

provoking

The video provokes thought and study of Islam’s
canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis, jurisprudence and biography.
It does not provoke violence.  In the last three days, 49 viewers
were drawn to Islam Exposed by inquiries into the veracity of the
video.  In the same time period, my post on the truth of the video
was viewed 102 times on that blog.

bigotry

Bigotry is provoked by bigots: those who, without
reason, in clear contravention of the facts presented in the video,
condemn it and its creator & publisher.

bloodshed

Bloodshed is provoked by Imams whose rabble rousing
kutbah include shouts of the takbir and “jihad!”. “Allah hu akbar” is a
war cry, Muslims know it and they respond to it.

Imams

Standard bearers of reason & respect and
promoting tolerance & understanding. Yeah, right.  Why is most
of the Hell raised after 2p.m. local time on Fridays?  Get a clue
for Chrissake!

intolerance

The video is not intolerant nor is it the product of
intolerance.  Islam is intolerant: 3:85 and the context of 3:110 and the hadith which explains it demonstrate that
fact.  Declaring perpetual war against  pagans, Jews,
Christians & Zoroastrians, that’s tolerant.  Yeah,
right.

respect

Respect is given to whom respect is due, Islam does
not deserve any, it is pure, unmitigated evil; a war crime against
humanity.

understanding

Those of us who have read the Qur’an & Hadith
and delved into tafsir, Shari’ah & The Life of Muhammad
understand Islam.  To whatever extent the video stimulates reading
Islam’s canon, understanding will become more widespread.

values

Islam places a premium on “jihad in Allah’s cause”,
which was described by Moe as Islam’s “peak” and the “best deed”. Any
step taken to injure or enrage infidels is imputed to the Muslim
terrorist as a “deed of righteousness”; extra credit toward an upgrade
to his seat in the celestial bordello.  The life of this world is
but a passtime: the real action is in the celestial bordello.

beliefs

The world was created by Allah, who owns it and
everything on it. Allah gave the works to Moe and shared ruling it with
him.  Only Allah has the right to be worshiped. Only Allah has the
right to legislate. Think I am joking?

 

September 19, 2012 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Combating Religious Hatred and Vilification


I had seen reports that the draft resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions had been edited to substitute vilification for defamation but I had not seen substantive details prior to last night.  One of my Google Alerts linked to an article which included a link to the amended resolution.

What is the big deal?  The State Department asserts that the USA rejects resolution on the basis of the concept of defamation of religions.  I presume that the edit is an attempt to throw a lifeline to Obamination.  Recall that while Obamination rejects defamation, he accepts negative stereotyping, which was substituted for defamation in the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution.  The OIC is tinkering with the semantics in hopes of sinning over some of the nay sayers and obstainers to their side.

None of the resolutions define the crucial terms, so I checked the on line dictionaries. A Google search turned up fifteen definitions of defamation.

  • Seven definitions specify that the victim  is a person.
  • Four definition specify that the statement must be false.
  • Six definitions list slander as an element.
  • Five definitions list libel as an element.
  • Two definitions list calumny as an element.
  • One of the definitions lists vilification as an element.
  • Three of the definitions list malicious as an element.

Next, I looked up vilification, receiving four results.

  • Two definitions listed defamation as an element.
  • One definition listed calumny as an element.
  • One definition listed slander and libel as elements.

Next, I looked up negative stereotyping , striking out. Removing the adjective resulted in fifteen definitions.  These are the best of the lot.

  • A stereotype is a commonly held public belief about specific social groups, or types of individuals. The concepts of “stereotype” and “prejudice” are often confused with many other different meanings. …
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotyping
  • stereotype – pigeonhole: treat or classify according to a mental stereotype; “I was stereotyped as a lazy Southern European”
  • stereotype – a conventional or formulaic conception or image; “regional stereotypes have been part of America since its founding”
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

To determine the meaning of those terms, as used in the resolutions, we must examine their context.

  • 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,

Who is defamed?  Is Islam a human person?  How does illustrating the cause–effect relationship of Islam to terrorism affront human dignity?  If Muslims find their dignity affronted by exposure of the truth about Islam, they can restore their dignity by converting to a pacifist religion.

How does defamation lead to illicit restriction of freedom of religion?  The reference is obviously to the Swiss minaret ban and the French Burqa ban.  What do minarets have to do with freedom of religion?  In ancient times, they were watch towers. Muslims adopted them for the call to prayer. They also serve as a powerful symbol of Islamic supremacy.  But they are not mentioned in the Qur’an or hadith as religious requirements.

Visit Open Burhan to verify the literal translation and compare the other translations of 33:59. You can check the entry in an Arab/English dictionary to verify it.

  • You, you the prophet, say to your wives and your daughters and the believers’ women they (F) near (lengthen) on them from their shirts/gowns/wide dresses, that (is) nearer that (E) they (F) be known (better than being identified), so they (F) do not be harmed mildly/harmed, and God was/is forgiving, merciful.

If you want to know the real deal, read Sahih Bukhari 1.4.148. Its about Umar hassling Sauda, one of Moe’s wives when she went out to answer a call of nature.

  • 14. Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the legislation necessary to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, [Emphasis added.]

That paragraph contains two key phrases which, when compared to certain relevant public statements, give us the final clue.

The Secretary-General is concerned over the controversy that has been created by the publication of the Danish cartoons.  He believes that the freedom of the press should always be exercised in a way that fully respects the religious beliefs and tenets of all religions.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10334.doc.htm

In plain language, Kofi Annan would have prevented the publication of the cartoons if it was in his power. That is the power they are seeking.

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.”

The Secretarys General told us that the Danish Cartoons did not respect Islamic religious beliefs and that Geert Wilders’ documentary constituted hate speech and incitement to violence.

The cartoon of greatest concern depicts Moe with a bomb in his turban, implying that he was a terrorist.  Moe never had a bomb because he died prior to the invention of gunpowder. But he was a terrorist, by his own admission:

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

The hate speech and incitement in Fitna come from the Qur’an and clerics, not from Geert Wilders.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=216_1207467783

Lets get down to the real issue of defamation, negative stereotyping. ¶ 24 contains a 28 item enumerated list. The seventh item is of interest.

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

Fitna and the Motoons display that association; what is wrong with it?  Re-examine the quotes from Bukhari’s collection of authentic sayings. Moe said that he won by terrifying his victims.  The Qur’an is not silent about this issue.

  • 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).

We shall terrorize the disbelievers. Click the link and read the context, it is one of aggressive conquest.

  • 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.”

What did Allah say he would do?  What did he order the angels to do? After reading this appetizer from Tafsir Ibn Kathir, click the link and read the entire passage.

  • Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said, “In the aftermath of Badr, the people used to recognize whomever the angels killed from those whom they killed, by the wounds over their necks, fingers and toes, because those parts had a mark as if they were branded by fire.”
  • 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.

Compare the last clause in 8:57 to the last clause in 59:2.  The objective is to build a reputation for brutality; you will see the application in 59:13.

  • [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.

Build the biggest army you can to strike terror.  What is the “cause of God”? [hint]  Now we get down to the practical application of those verses.

  • 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.

What did Allah say he would do?  What did he do?  What resulted?  Moe and his army killed the men of one tribe and enslaved their widows and orphans. But, of course, Islam has no connection to terror and human rights violations. Its the religion of peace.

  • 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).

What did Allah do to the Bani An-Nadir?  What is the meaning of the admonition?  Can you relate that to the lesson of 8:57?

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

The Jews fear Muslims more than they fear Allah. Why is that?  Can you make the connections with 8:57 & 59:2?  How did Allah cast terror into their hearts?

Those Muslims are supremely arrogant; they assume that we are ignorant, gullible fools who will believe anything if it is repeated with sufficient frequency. “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”.  Islam’s scripture and tradition inform us that the statement from ¶ 24.7 is an accursed lie. They want to base international law on that lie, criminalizing  revelation of the fact that it is a lie!

The true source of Islamic blasphemy law is Reliance of the Traveller.  Observe the penalty for apostasy.

  • 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.

Apostates are killed. What acts warrant their death?  Reliance lists twenty, these are particularly relevant.

  • o8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

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

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

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

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

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

How do those rules apply to us as disbelievers?  When disbelievers are conquered and subjugated as dhimmis under Islamic supremacy, they are obligated by a treaty of protection. That treaty is violated if they perform certain acts listed in Reliance. Guess what the penalty is.

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

  • o11.11

    When a subject’s agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).

  • o9.14

    When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

When the resolution is voted out of the third committee and passed in the General Assembly, it will not have the force of law, but it will add unwarranted legitimacy to existing blasphemy laws which are used to persecute religious minorities in several Islamic nations.

Unfortunately, that is not the real threat to our liberty. This is:  Ad Hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards.  The cmte. will meet at the end of November for a week and a few days. Its purpose is to insert the resolution into ICERD through a binding protocol, giving it the force of  international law.  Last year, the cmte. bogged down in procedural matters. We have no way of knowing when it will finish its work, but when it does, we will be outvoted and the protocol will become law.

Several blog posts about the ad hoc cmte. have been compiled.

The resolution will be voted on in the cmte., the vote is expected to happen Monday or Tuesday.  The General Assembly vote should happen in December. Several human rights organizations are lobbying against it, but with little hope of success.   Besides signing the petition posted by Open Doors, there is not much we can do about it.

Our best tactic is a counter attack: to raise the political cost of censoring us above Islam’s threshold of pain.  As I showed you their egregious lie and proved it above, you can share that information with others.  Copy and cross post this blog post. Paste it into emails. Tell everyone who will listen about the injustice being perpetrated by the OIC.

Three international human rights covenants contain provisions which would, if enforced, require that Islam be proscribed by law.  The purpose of the International Qur’an Petition is to bring the vital facts to the attention of the public and the World Court. Please sign it and spread it. Cross post it on your blog or web site. Send it by email to  everyone you can hope to influence.

 

November 22, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | 2 Comments

Combating Defamation of Religions


The current incarnation of the resolution demanding international imposition of Islam’s blasphemy laws is A/C.3/65/L.46. Combating defamation of religions,
dated October 28 ’10. Like its predecessors, the draft resolution begins with references to previous resolutions and related documents, then it gets down to the serious business of reaffirming, welcoming,  underlining and expressing serious concern.   Lets  examine selected  lumps from the septic tank.

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, Reaffirming that discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes a violation of human rights and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter,

Defamation usually applies to individuals, see the first terms in a definition search.

  • a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone’s words or actions
  • aspersion: an abusive attack on a person’s character or good name
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Perhaps we can find some relevant detail.

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

 

[…] which clearly confirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group, […]

Almost everyone more than twelve years old should recall immediately what they are kvetching about: the Motoons & Fitna.  The Motoons depict Moe as a terrorist. Is that defamatory?  He died in 632, prior to the invention of gunpowder, so he never had a bomb in his turban.  But he was a self-confessed terrorist.

  • 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]

The Motoons contained exaggeration, but they also contained the element of truth necessary to effective humor. They did not calumniate or defame Moe.

Fitna juxtaposed the Qur’an with scenes  of Imams inciting the believers to jihad, followed by scenes of slaughter. Fitna connects the dots, demonstrating cause and effect.  It is true, and therefore not defamatory.

In the matter of terrorism: Moe claimed victory through terror. Allah said that he would cast terror, commanded the Muslims to strike off necks and fingers, then  reported that he cast terror and its consequences.[Emphasis added for clarity.]

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

Terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam.  Pointing out that fact is not defamatory, it is truthful.

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

They are alarmed that our government does not silence our criticism of Islam.  The First Amendment gives me a right to expose Islam’s rotten core without fear of the federal government.

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

They demand that our schools be co-opted to indoctrinate our children with false praises of Islam so that they will tolerate the intolerable.

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;

That sentence is redundant, it simply restates the complaint about exposing the doctrines & practices of Islam.  It is the second item in a 28 item enumerated list. The third item follows suit, adding two new elements.

Strongly deplores all acts of psychological and physical violence and assaults, and incitement thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, and such acts directed against their businesses, properties, cultural centres and places of worship, as well as the targeting and desecration of holy books, holy sites and religious symbols and venerated personalities of all religions;

If you are so concerned about incitement to violence, why don’t you ban the Qur’an, which contains imperatives to wage war on Christians? Are you unable to make the connection between 9:39 & 9:123 with attacks on churches in Egypt, Iraq,Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan & Indonesia?

Here are the novel elements:

  • desecration of holy books
  • venerated personalities

Of course, they are not kvetching about terrorists who occupied the Church of the Nativity, who practiced istinja with pages torn from the Bible. [In the link, Daniel Pipes reveals the existence of a fatwa permitting the practice.] Neither are they kvetching about burning Bibles. The reference is specific to International Burn a Qur’an Day.

And the venerated personality is Moe, who really was a terrorist, not Jesus Christ, whose paternity, divinity, crucifixion, death & resurrection are denied by the Qur’an and who is co-opted by Islam as a genocidal warlord.   The Qur’ans torn and partially burned in New York and torn in Washington D.C. Sept. 11 were English translations, which are not considered sacred or authentic by Islam.

Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion, as well as the targeting and desecration of holy books, holy sites and religious symbols and venerated personalities of all religions;

Their definition of incitement is so loose that it encompasses every possible criticism of Islam. Recall what Secy. Gen. Ban Ki-moon said about Fitna.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

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

The hate speech in Fitna flows from the lips of Imams. The incitement flows from their lips and from the Qur’an.

Reaffirms that general recommendation XV (42) of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,14 in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

I have a few examples for your consideration.

  • 98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur’ân and Prophet Muhammad ()) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.
  • 2:159. Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences and the guidance, which We have sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allâh and cursed by the cursers.
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

    Narrated Abu Huraira:

    The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

 

Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the legislation necessary 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, 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;

That is the same tired boiler plate demand for legislation criminalizing criticism of Islam. Bear in mind what Ban said about Fitna.  Islam contumaciously demands that it be shielded from all questioning and criticism.  Islam demands that it and it alone be allowed to hurl curses while being shielded from return fire.

November 5, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | 2 Comments

Coming Soon to a Courtroom near You


Citizen Warrior posted a video  about  Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s case, also linking to a very informative  previous  article.  Wolff & Wilders are on trial in Europe, accused of  insulting & inciting hatred against Muslims.  Jail terms and heavy fines hang over their heads because they spoke openly and honestly about the damnable doctrines & practices of Islam revealed in its own canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.   Others have been persecuted  for truth in Australia, Canada, England and Scandinavia.

In America, at present, we can not be brought up on criminal charges for revealing the demonic core of Islam because we are protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment.  But Justice Stephen Breyer has brought our umbrella of protection into doubt: “And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?

In the current political climate, Democrats are desperately seeking ways to squelch criticism of their policies & corruption.  Some seek to resurrect the “fairness doctrine”, others look to changes in the licensing requirements for radio stations.  They need to silence Rush Limbaugh and others  who speak truth to power.

Unfortunately, that domestic threat converges with a parallel international threat,  Bolstered by the controversy of International Burn a Qur’an Day.  The OIC and its member states have been screaming for international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.  At the opening of the 15th session of the  Human Rights Council, they urged “internationally oriented preventive measures to combat negative religious stereotyping
including denigration of religions”1 and  “It is through an outright  rejection of such acts and sustained engagement at evolving norms to deal with them that we would prevail against the extremists who are out to rock the very foundations of peaceful coexistence.”2

Two phrases in that last quote need elaboration.  “such acts” is a direct reference to International Burn a Qur’an Day but it expands to encompass all questioning & criticism of Islam.  “Evolving norms to deal with them”  may be wrongly assumed to refer to the annual Combating Defamation… resolutions but it has a more sinister reference.  Few beyond the ivory tower heights of international human rights NGOs are aware of this threat to our precious liberty.

The HRC  appointed an ad hoc committee  to explore and elaborate “complementary international standards”3.  The committee’s lofty title and charge tell us nothing  useful.  It is only by scratching beneath the surface that we discover  their mission: to write a binding protocol to ICERD which will give the force of international law to the defamation resolutions.

By encoding the content of the resolutions 4 into a protocol attached to ICERD5, they will be made enforcible by the World Court.  Signatories will be required by international law to legislate and enforce acts prohibiting criticism of Islam.

Steve Malzberg had a masterful rant on the subject of “hate speech” laws in the opening hour of his September 13 radio show.

…”Even Republicans-Even the great Peter King, Congressman-said that ‘Terry Jones is putting our troops at risk; I agree with General Petraeus’  blah blah blah. ladies and gentlemen, if our freedom of speech can be seen as putting our troops at risk, then our freedom of speech is going away.  Make no mistake about that–our freedom of speech is going away.  In Canada, you can’t say anything that would offend a group, like Muslims, for instance, that they might consider offensive, oh gee, they call it hate speech. Ya can’t say it. …

Who is to blame for the escalating violence over the Qur’an burning, is it the Pastor himself, is it the Obama Administration or is it the media? I said: common, you left out choice D, which is the correct choice, where it it? Those were the choices, ladies and gentlemen, A, B & C.  The correct choice is …. the people responsible for the threat of violence are the scumbag terrorists. Duh.  Don’t you see how this makes Terry Jones’s point?  When he says that there’s something wrong with portions of Islam?  Do you see where we’ve progressed to or digressed to, on this issue?  You can’t burn a Qur’an, you can’t incite the poor terrorists, you can’t do something that will give Usama bin Ladin a recruiting poster, even if it is protected by freedom of speech; the First Amendment, you can’t do it; we’ll send the FBI to your church,  we’ll take files out, we’ll have somebody close down/ whoever runs your web  site/ your provider close it down, which is what happened. The FBI came, the provider said ‘oh, you violated such and such a rule-no more web site for the church  ‘ . And they read him the riot act. God knows what they told him.  Who knows how they threatened him to get him to stop?  God spoke to him and told him not to do it.  Of course, first he said he had a deal ‘the mosque will not be built there’, yeah right, … but don’t you for one minute think that this is not the beginning of the end of the United States of America as you know it.

Remember after 9/11 some started saying well, … how is this different from the Imam himself who said that we were ‘accesory to 9/11, and Usama
bin ladin was made in the united states, that we have Muslim blood on our hands’  ?  So shat do you expect, how is this different from Rev. Wright; ‘the chickens have come home to roost.’ ‘cuz we support the Israelies & dropped bombs on Hiroshima? How is this different than what they’re saying, when you tell a Pastor ‘if you burn that book, the terrorists are going to strike and its your fault’, how is it different than what Reverend  Wright and Imam Rauf and the rest of the skunks say about 9/11 and about this country deserving it ?  And whose to blame for 9/11; I always thought it was the terrorists, but  if you follow Barack Hussein Obama’s logic; Hillary Clinton’s logic’ General Petraeus’s logic; Defense Secretary Gates’s logic and I’m sorry to say, just about everybody I’ve heard from’s logic  if he’;d burned the Qur’an and something had happened, it’d be his fault. How is that?

Now, next in line will be, and we’ve already heard it,   We’ve heard it from the Imam: he can’t move the mosque  from where he wants to build it; absolutely not, do you know why?   he can’t do it (‘Our national security now hinges on how we do this and how we speak about it and what we do . It is important now for us to raise the bar…
if we move the radicals have  shaped the discourse –the radicals have shaped the discourse on both sides and those of  us who are moderates on both sides ..’)…

What will they demand next?  People like me, speaking up; ‘you’re inflaming the terrorists’; its our fault. Its terry Jones’s fault, its the people who want the mosque moved’s fault .  Its my fault, don’t you get it?  Just like  its the U.S. Government’s fault that 9/11 happened,
And now we, not me, are starting to accept it in this country.

Well, you’d better not burn the Qur’an, don’t want to inflame the terrorists, well we don’t do anything to  upset them-screw’em! What the Hell is going on here?

Wolff & Wilders are on trial for “hate speech”  It is assumed  by LibTards that revealing the core doctrines & practices of Islam  inculcate hatred & incite violence. while in reality, the hatred is inculcated and the violence incited by the Qur’an, hadith, Sira & kutbah based upon them, preached in every mosque  every Friday afternoon.

View Fitna. You saw the Qur’an, in Arabic and English. You heard it recited. You saw the Imam’s preaching it. You saw the rioting, death and destruction which result.  Which is hate speech:  the sanctification & mandate of genocidal conquest or exposing it to the world?   The Imams who preach from that accursed book should be in the dock, not Geert Wilders.

This is what the Secretary General of the U.N. said about that 17 minute video.

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.”

The right of  free expression is at stake; there is ample justification for Fitna; none for the Qur’an.  Ban  ki-Moon is guilty of inverting morality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhgkN42uAJQ&feature=player_embedded

Wilders & Wolff are being tried under existing national hate speech legislation.  If the OIC prevails in its pursuit of tyranny, our nation will emulate those laws and our liberty will be lost forever.

The annual resolutions are getting all the press. Who is paying attention to the activity of the Ad Hoc Cmte. which  presents the real threat?  The OIC outnumbers us and can out vote us.  We can not prevail by lobbying efforts. We can not prevail with bland, inoffensive petitions  calling for the defeat of impotent resolutions.  We need to raise the  political/public relations cost of  the OIC’s mission to enslave us.  We need to use their own methods against them.

Who has the SISU to reveal the truth about Islam?  Who will point out the fact that Islam’s Qur’an & Sunnah are egregious static violations of existing human rights covenants?

ICERD. [Emphasis added.]

Article 4

States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:

(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;

(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;

(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.

States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin,

ICCPR

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

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

2:91. And when it is said to them (the Jews), “Believe in what Allâh has sent down,” they say, “We believe in what was sent down to us.” And they disbelieve in that which came after it, while it is the truth confirming what is with them. Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him to them): “Why then have you killed the Prophets of Allâh aforetime, if you indeed have been believers?”

98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur’ân and Prophet Muhammad  from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:30. 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!

Tabari IX:69 “Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in Allah’s Cause. Killing him is a small matter to us.” [Quoted by Craig Winn.]

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article 3

The following acts shall be punishable:

  • (a) Genocide;
  • (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
  • (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
  • (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
  • (e) Complicity in genocide.
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.


ICCPR, ICERD & CPPCG require that Islam and its canon of scripture & tradition be condemned and proscribed by law.  Who will enforce those provisions?  They want to amend ICERD to use against us while it already condemns them!   How shall we deal with those arrogant violators of human rights?  Hoist them on their own petard!  Sign, publicized & promote the International Qur’an  Petition.  You can copy the full, html format petition, complete with  links to the evidence and a link to the signature page and paste it into an email, with an exhortation to sign and forward it.


  1. Statement of   The OIC Secretary General His Excellency Prf. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu  Before the 15th Session of the Human Rights Council
    16 Sept. 2010  http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/8864sggenevaoic.pdf
  2. ibid
  3. The blog posts listed here contain quotes from & links to the few available documents related to the cmte.
  4. Combating defamation of religions
  5. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

September 20, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Defamation of Religions UNHRC March 25 ’10


The  UN Human Rights Council has once again debated and passed  their annual Defamation of Religions Resolution.
The Revised Draft has stricken some words and phrases from the first draaft, but relies on the old boilerplate.

Optimists will assert that there is a positive trend in the votes. After charting the votes, I find little cause for optimism.
Chart of vote trend in HrC.

The no votes have come at the expense of abstentions,  not yes votes.  Since the members are elected by regional blocks, there is little   chance of reducing the  OIC representation on the council.

The current resolution, like its predecessors, consists of  itemized lists of boilerplate references to previous documents  interspersed with emotive catchwords designed to inculcate guilt in the innocent.

If you want to read four pages of  polemical crap, be my guest,  I provided  links to it. I will present here only the most important  segments of the screed which was submitted by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC.

Recognizing the valuable contribution of all religions to modern civilization and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make towards improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind,

What the Hell has Islam contributed to civilization other than the legacy of genocidal conquest?  Men conquered and enslaved by Muslims translated ancient manuscripts, preserving Greek and Asian mathematics and science during the Dark Ages, preserving but not creating  the foundation of the enlightenment.

Noting with deep concern the instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence against followers of certain faiths occurring in many parts of the world, including cases motivated by Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia, in addition to the negative projection of certain religions in the media and the introduction and  enforcement of laws and administrative measures that specifically discriminate against and target persons with certain ethnic and religious backgrounds, particularly Muslim minorities following the events of l l September 2001 , and that threaten to impede their full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Note how careful they are to universalize the concept of defamation by including anti-Semitism & Christianophobia, which they later negate by emphasizing    the supposed effects on Muslims.  Who, other than Islamic texts and sermons, is negatively projecting Judaism  & Christianity?

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

“Defamation of religions”  is a nebulous and undefined term without intrinsic meaning.  It derives meaning only from the specific examples frequently cited, particularly Fitna and the Motoons.   In civil defamation. truth is a defense.  Fitna is true, how can it be defamatory?

Human dignity is affronted by adherence to immoral and fallacious beliefs and doctrines which sanctify and mandate genocidal conquest, not by exposing those doctrines. How the Hell is there human dignity in Islam, which venerates the  barbarian warlord who made the statements in this traditional saying?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”

Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights; so much for human dignity!!!   What is incitement to violence if not Surah al-Anfal & at-Taubah in the Qur’an?

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 and, in this context, stressing the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular,

So they are concerned with defamaition and incitement. Have they read the Qur’an?

98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur’ân and Prophet Muhammad  from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

If their concern about defamation & incitement were sincere, they’d start with their own scripture instead of trying to criminalize exposure of their doctrines and practices.

2. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping and defamation of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still evident in the world, which have led to intolerance against the followers of these
religions;

President Obama prefers “negative stereotyping” to “defamation”. I’d enjoy  hearing him explain the difference.  The OIC used both expressions in one sentence.

4. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions, in particular when condoned by Governments;

This is an obvious veiled reference to certain European political parties that oppose Islamization of Europe.

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of` the overall campaign of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of ll
September 200l;

Were the Magnificent Nineteen   Jews?   Mormons?  What were they?  How about the perpetrators of the London, Madrid and Bali bombings?  And the numerous hijackers; were they Lutherans?   They were young Muslim males, but we shouldn’t be suspicious  of young Muslim males, should we?

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,

Earlier I quoted Moe, who said that our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and his companion who  added that we have no rights until we become Muslims.  If that ain’t a human rights violation, what is?   Waging war against people who simply maintain their own religious beliefs in the face of your demand to convert violates  the rights to life and freedom of conscience in the most profound way.

What the Hell is wrong about the association of Islam and terrorism???

3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).

8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.”

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

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.

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).

Wrongly associated with terrorism?  Yeah, right.

8. Strongly condemns in this regard the ban on the construction of minarets of mosques and other recent discriminatory measures, which are manifestations of Islamophobia that stand in sharp contradiction to international human rights obligations
concerning freedoms of religion, belief, conscience and expression, and stresses that such discriminatory measures would fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences;

:    Help me out with this; banning minarets in Switzerland threatens social cohesion and may lead to violence but prohibiting the construction and maintenance of churches in Saudi Arabia and Egypt is perfectly harmless.  What twists of illogic will  they take to explain that away?

9. Reaffirms the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-terrorism Strategy, adopted without a vote by the General Assembly in its resolution 60/288 of 8 September 2006 and
reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and in which it clearly reaffirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or group, as well as the need to reinforce the commitment of the international community to promote, among other things, a culture of peace and respect for all religions, belief`s, and cultures and to prevent the defamation of religions;

Like its predecessors, this resolution is redundant, as if repetition converts fallacy into truth.

10. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion, as well as the targeting of religious
symbols and venerated persons;

Who does that?  Various terrorist groups have web sites that glorify and incite acts of terrorism, most recently Adam Gadahn  uploaded a video in which he urged Muslims to terrorize America.  Do they really deplore that, or is it only Fitna and blog posts which expose Islamic doctrines that they deplore?

11. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, including articles 19 and 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19 and 20 of the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations only as provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and general welfare;

They are trying to set up a  legal basis for restricting our right of free expression. Truthfully describing the doctrines and practices of Islam and its founder is not akin to shouting fire in a crowded venue. Nor is it defamatory.  Linking  the violent acts of Muslim mobs with  Allah’s imperatives to genocidal conquest is not defamation, it is truth.   Truthful political speech, even if it offends those whose peccadillos are exposed, must be protected by law, as it is by  our First Amendment, in order to preserve liberty.  Islam is a predator which seeks complete domination of the world.  If we can not expose that fact, we can not defend ourselves.   It is Islam’s intention to render us defenseless in the war of ideas.

12. Reaffirms that general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

Race, religion and culture are not  equivalent  concepts.  Opposition to Islamic conquest is not racism.  Wanting to maintain our own culture is not racism nor is it evil.

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

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 256:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah’s Apostle said, “You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin.”

Got a clue yet?

13. Strongly condemns all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, including on
the basis of religion or belief and urges all States to apply and, where required, reinforce existing laws when such xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in order to deny impunity tor those who commit such acts;

They are demanding that laws be passed and enforced to punish us for exposing Islam’s doctrines & practices to public view.

14. 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, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs;

Re-read the  clauses I emphasized in ¶14.  How in Hell can any sentient and informed person tolerate  and respect Islam??  It is not possible for a rational and moral person to tolerate and respect a system of perpetual war!  Tolerance and respect must be reciprocal.

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.

What did Allah command Moe to do?  What did he say about the sanctity of our blood and property?  Got a clue yet?

16. Calls upon all States to make the utmost effort, in accordance with their
national legislation and in conformity with international human rights and humanitarian
law
, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and
protected, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration
or destruction;

How do you define symbols?  Stretched far enough, that concept covers Islam’s scripture and founder.  Remember how they rioted over depiction of Moe in those cartoons?  We are supposed to respect a man who, at 52, married a six year old girl; a man who had an elderly poet torn apart by camels?

19. Takes note with appreciation the intention of the High Commissioner to provide further support for the progressive development of international human rights law in respect of freedom of expression and incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence.

If you think that paragraph is innocuous, then take a good close look at Fitna and at what the Secretary General  said about it.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

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

The only incitement in Fitna comes from Allah and  his slaves, not from Geert Wilders.


External documents referenced in the resolution:

March 26, 2010 Posted by | United Nations | , | 2 Comments

Ad Hoc Committee Leaves Work Unfinished


UN Watch published, in their blog, links to two apparently recent proposals for the protocol to be added to ICERD by the Ad Hoc Cmte. for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. [The pdf  files contained scanned images, not text, so OCR was required. The format will not be an exact match and there may be errors I failed to spot. ] [Emphasis added.]

Provisions of these  proposals are in dispute.  It appears that the committee has been bogged down in procedural matters & disputes so that our freedom of expression may be safe for a few months at least, until their next session.

Proposals by Pakistan on behalf of OIC

1. State Parties States shall prohibit any propaganda, practice, or organisation aimed at justifying or encouraging any form of racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination targeting people of particular groups, such as religious groups, refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, stateless individuals, migrants and migrant workers, communities based on descent, such as people of African descent, indigenous people, minorities and people under foreign occupation.

2. State Parties shall immediately undertake to adopt positive measures designed to eliminate all incitement to racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination in and, to this end, shall commit themselves, inter alia:

  1. to declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas aimed at racial,  ethnic, national and religious       discrimination or hatred, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any particular group of persons;
  2. to declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda  activities, which encourage and incite racial hatred or discrimination, and shall declare participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;
  3. not to permit national or local public authorities incite racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discriininationg,
  4. not to permit political parties incite racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination. .
  5. to strengthen their legislations or adopt necessary legal provisions to prohibit and suppress racist and xenophobic platforms and to discourage the integration of political parties who promote such platforms in govermnent alliances in order to legitimising the implementation of these platforms.


3. States Parties shall, in accordance with the human rights standards, declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form.

4. States Parties shall promulgate, where they do not exist, a specific legislation prohibiting any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

To decode the substance of the highlighted expressions, we must keep one linguistic abuse constantly in mind:

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

That boilerplate from the Durban II Preliminary Document conflates criticism of Islam with racism. Consequently, references to racism in subsequent documents must be read more broadly.

What constitutes incitement to religious hatred?  In effect, any negative expression regarding Islam. This fact becomes clear when we examine the documents  behind previous resolutions: Fitna & the Danish Cartoons. The Secretary General made the matter abundantly clear.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

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

According to the Secretary General, a documentary juxtaposing verses from the Qur’an and the ravings of Imams with riots in the Arab street constitutes hate speech and incitement.  Geert Wilders proved that the Qur’an  inculcates hatred and  preaching it incites violence. That is truth, not hate speech!  The obvious intention and effect is to make all criticism of Islam a criminal offense.

ICCPR

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.

If Article 20 of ICCPR was enforced, the Qur’an would have to be outlawed as propaganda for war and advocacy of religious hatred inciting violence.

It is likely that the OIC’s proposal will be included, along with boilerplate from previous resolutions, in the anticipated Defamation of Religions resolution.  The Nigerian proposal differs: it omits provisions 3 & 4.

Compare the OIC’s proposal to Article 4 of the Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document. See also my analysis of  the Pakistan/OIC submission made last spring.

October 30, 2009 Posted by | United Nations | , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Urge Your Rep. to Support H.Res.763!


Source: Open Congress

H.Res.763 – Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations resolutions on the “defamation of religions” are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their religious beliefs.

A blog post about a hearing held recently by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission mentioned a Sense of the House resolution submitted by Representative Ted Poe,. Republican, of Texas and 12  Co-Sponsors:
Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5], Rep. James Forbes [R, VA-4], Rep. James Forbes [R, VA-4], Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2], Rep. Duncan Hunter [R, CA-52],  Rep. Bob Inglis [R, SC-4],  Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5], Rep. Jeff Miller [R, FL-1],  Rep. Joseph Pitts [R, PA-16],  Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18], Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1], Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1], Rep. Christopher Smith [R, NJ-4] and Rep. Zach Wamp [R, TN-3].

The resolution was introduced September 22 ’09 and referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

No news or blog coverage of the issue was found in the news section of the web page.  Only 36 people had viewed it.  A poll in the right sidebar shows 100% viewer support.

CRS summary from Thomas.

SUMMARY AS OF:
9/22/2009–Introduced.

Underscores the value of respectful speech while affirming that the freedoms of speech and religious exercise are integral to free societies and human dignity.

Urges the Secretary of State to make every effort to defeat the passage of resolutions on the “defamation of religions” at the United Nations and other resolutions or international instruments that threaten the free and peaceful exchange of ideas, beliefs, and truth claims.

Calls on the United Nations (U.N.) to abandon efforts to adopt the flawed concept ofdefamation of religions.”

Urges U.N. member states to focus on protecting the fundamental freedom of individuals to peacefully express their religious beliefs and to avoid supporting resolutions that threaten freedom of expression.

The text of the resolution follows, as found at Thomas.

111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. RES. 763

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations resolutions on the `defamation of religions’ are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their religious beliefs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 22, 2009

Mr. POE of Texas (for himself, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, and Mr. INGLIS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs


RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations resolutions on the `defamation of religions’ are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their religious beliefs.

Whereas since 1999, the United Nations has annually passed a resolution on the `defamation of religions’ in the Human Rights Council (previously the Commission on Human Rights) and in the General Assembly;

Whereas unlike traditional defamation laws, which punish false statements of fact that harm individual persons, measures prohibiting the `defamation of religions’ punish the peaceful criticism of ideas;

Whereas United Nations resolutions on the `defamation of religions’ contradict United States Constitutional protections of free speech and the free exercise of religion;

Whereas the concept of `defamation of religions’ is fundamentally inconsistent with the principles outlined in the United Nations’ founding documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms the protection of persons, rather than ideas;

Whereas Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that `Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance’;

Whereas Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that `Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’;

Whereas the sponsor of these United Nations resolutions, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, has indicated that it is seeking to create a legally binding mechanism to combat the `defamation of religions’;

Whereas such resolutions provide international support for domestic anti-blasphemy laws in some countries;

Whereas domestic anti-blasphemy laws are often used by governments to punish the peaceful expression of disfavored religious beliefs and ideas;

Whereas the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has confirmed that there is no international consensus on the concept of `defamation of religions’, and multiple United Nations Special Rapporteurs have acknowledged that the difficulties in providing an objective definition of the term `defamation of religions’ at the international level make the whole concept open to abuse;

Whereas the United States Constitution does not guarantee, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not recognize, the right to have one’s beliefs protected from challenge or criticism, or the right not to be offended;

Whereas existing legal instruments already address discrimination, personal defamation, and incitement to violence in ways that are more carefully focused to address those specific problems without unduly threatening the rights of speech and religious free exercise; and

Whereas legal efforts alone cannot foster an environment of respect and religious freedom, and education and public diplomacy are vital tools in the protection of a peaceful and robust exchange of ideas and beliefs: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
    • (1) underscores the value of respectful speech and civil dialogue, at the same time that it affirms that the freedoms of speech and religious free exercise are integral to the health of free societies and the dignity of the human person;
    • (2) strongly urges the Secretary of State to make every effort to defeat the passage of future resolutions on the `defamation of religions’ at the United Nations, and other resolutions or international instruments that would threaten the free and peaceful exchange of ideas, beliefs, and truth claims;
    • (3) calls on the United Nations to abandon all efforts to adopt or affirm the flawed concept of `defamation of religions’; and
    • (4) urges fellow Member States of the United Nations to focus on protecting the fundamental freedom of individuals to peacefully express their religious beliefs, and to avoid supporting resolutions that threaten the freedom of expression.

After reading the resolution and pasting its text into this blog post, I suspended my writing, and went immediately to http://www.congress.org/ where I entered my Zip Code and clicked the Federal Officials link, subsequently sending a strongly worded email to President Obama, my Senators and my Representative urging them to duplicate the resolution in the Senate and get it passed.

Keeping and maintaining our Representative Republic; maintaining and enforcing our Constitution and preserving the Bill of Rights is up to us. Nobody else will do it for us. We must speak out on the issue of significant threats to our rights. The pending protocol to ICERD and Defamation Resolution are  threats to our right of free expression, which we must strenuously oppose with all possible vigor.

I urge my fellow citizens to click the link to congress.org and send emails to their Representative & Senators. I urge citizens of the European Union to contact their MP and MEP demanding that they oppose the protocol and resolution.  Get it done!

October 23, 2009 Posted by | United Nations | , | 1 Comment

Combating Defamation of Religions: Anticipation


Update Nov. 10, 2009: A new edition of the resolution has been tabled in the Third Committee. Two new posts will bring the reader up to date. The first of these was written before I found the draft document. It contains extensive links to earlier resolutions and related documents. The second contains considerable detail about the new resolution and links to items in the footnotes found in the draft. It also has links to petitions you can sign and promote and a Sense of Congress resolution opposing the OIC’s current tactics.

 


 

In May of ’09, the OIC issued their 2nd oic observatory report on islamophobia (june 2008 to april 2009). that fifty page pdf file may be our best guide in anticipating the content of the ’09 Defamation of Religions Resolution which is expected to be submitted on or before November 3; voting may begin Nov. 12. As of the time of this writing, no draft resolution has surfaced. In anticipation of the resolution, Open Doors has begun a Free to Believe petition campaign asking UN member states to reject the resolution.

Our first warning flag is found in the first sentence of the report’s forward.

The common values of mankind must be based on a firm commitment to human rights1, as well as on the recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings2.

  1. Download Islam vs Human Rights to see how well Islamic doctrine complies with international human rights covenants.
  2. Read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 to see Islam’s respect for human dignity; our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights until we become Muslims.

The second paragraph of the forward is rich and thick with lies.

Islam is a religion that implies “peace” by its very nomenclature3. It advocates respect for all religious beliefs and embraces the truth of the preceding Abrahamic faiths4. In reaffirming the preceding prophethoods, it does not, under any circumstances and as a matter of belief, permit any attack on the prophets or other religious symbols of Christianity or Judaism5. In this context it must be emphasized and understood that Islam is not a contender of Christianity or Judaism6.

  1. Islam is peace if and only if submission is peace. Submission is peace to the extent that, if you surrender to Islam, it won’t wage war against you.
  2. The Jews earned Allah’s anger and the Christians went astray. 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!
  3. Read The Defamation of Jesus Christ to learn how Islam denies his patrimony, crucifixion, death & resurrection and depicts him as a genocidal warlord.
  4. Allah’s Jihad imperatives, expressed in 9:29 & 9:123 prove the fact that Islam is in a permanent state of war against Jews & Christians.

The third paragraph of the forward is a gold mine of lies, with a little truth mixed in.

Islamophobia signifies the contemporary proliferation of discrimination against Muslims and distortion of Islam and is partly due to the ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam in the West7. It would be an unfortunate error in judgment in believing that Islam is linked to terror8; that it is intolerant of other religious beliefs9, that its values and practices are not democratic10; that it favors repression of freedom of expression and undermining human rights11.

  1. Phobia implies irrational fear & loathing. Is it irrational to loathe an institution which has murdered 270,000,000 people in the last 1386 years? I hate Islam, but I do not distort it; I reveal its evil nature by means of its own canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence. I am attempting to correct popular ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam.
  2. Islam is linked to terror by Allah’s declaration that he would cast terror, order to mutilate in conjunction with his casting of terror, declaration that he successfully cast terror, and Moe’s declaration that he was made victorious by terror.
  3. Allah said that if anyone sought a religion other than Islam, it would never be accepted. Allah commanded Muslims to fight pagans until only Allah is worshiped. Is that tolerance?
  4. 33:36. It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error. How democratic is that?
  5. The issue of Defamation of Religion & Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolutions results from the OIC’s promotion of censorship.If waging war against us does not violate human rights, what does?

In the fourth paragraph, we receive our first hints at the resolution to come.

Islamophobia is a manifestation of racial discrimination12. It constitutes a two stranded form of racism anchored in both the different physical appearance of Muslims as well as the intolerance of their religion and cultural beliefs. It has now spread to the level of mainstream political activity13 and needs to be considered and addressed as one of the most serious threats to the
world’s stability.

  1. Criticism of Islam has been equated to racism since the preliminary document for Durban II. Accusation of racism is a favorite method of stifling debate.
  2. That is an obvious reference to emerging European parties which object to Islamification.

Following a little consolidation, they’ll give us another hint. Muslims are suffering from the Danish Cartoons, Fitna and blog posts that reveal orthodox Islamic doctrines. Muslims are so delicate and temperamental that they require a legal shield to protect them from perceived insult. They are burning homes & churches and killing Christians in Africa & Asia but it is Muslims who need protection from attack. Yeah, right.

The frequency of demonic portrayal and misrepresentation of Islam and Muslims have resulted in a situation where the identity of Muslims,
their self-esteem, human dignity and human rights has suffered tremendously. In short, Muslims need to be afforded protection against the social and psychological damage inflicted by the negative stereotyping and smear campaign which has wrongfully caused discrimination, bigotry, harassment and mental and physical abuse.

It is not extremely clear, we must read between the lines to harvest the next hint from the redundant maundery.

A section of the western media is a major factor in the formation of the collective misrepresentation about Islam and Muslims14. This has been spreading in the impactful areas of information15, education and the fertile grounds for the dissemination of the open hostility and the entrenchment of hatred against it.

In the present globalized world, peaceful and harmonious coexistence among diverse religions and cultures is not an option but the only means to survival16. Spectacular achievements in sphere of information and communication technology that have transformed our world into a single community afford threats as well as opportunities for peaceful coexistence17. They present mankind with tools to incite hatred and intolerance; discrimination; and distortions of religious and cultural beliefs that can spark violence causing loss of innocent lives and damage to property18. On the other hand, they can be utilized to do the reverse if we have the collective will not to allow their use to preach hatred and intolerance of other religions and cultural beliefs19.

  1. The media will continue to be a target, as it was in the Durban II Draft, Paragraphs 17, 66 & 119 and paragraphs 3(e) & 8 of the more recent Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution passed by the UNHRC. We can expect them to demand self-censorship again. .
  2. “Information” is a code word for the internet. They want to censor blogs and web sites. The reference to education means they want to convert our schools into indoctrination centers to convert our children to Islam.
  3. Translation: “embrace Islam and you will be safe”, a common theme in Moe’s extortion letters.
  4. “Threats” means they want to shut down our blogs and web sites. “Opportunities” means they want to set up propaganda sites to recruit converts by concealing the truth about Islam while extolling its non-existent virtues.
  5. “Spark violence” is a reference to the Danish Cartoons, which did not cause violence. The violence was caused by rabble rousing sermons at Juma Prayers in Mosques.
  6. Clarity at last! The demand for censorship is out in the open.

The conclusions and Recommendations section on page 26 of the pdf reinforces the lies I exposed earlier and the call for Dialogue which they brought out in the Executive Summary, which I did not cover. The Dialogue pitch is boilerplate from past resolutions.

The OIC proposes a frank, sincere and result oriented Dialogue20 geared to curbing Islamophobia through promoting better understanding of different cultures and religions as well as better integration of Muslims in the West21. The OIC has remained firm in its commitment towards bringing about a meaningful Dialogue among civilizations and has been working closely with its international partners including the Alliance of Civilizations towards intercultural understanding and defeating the propagators of hatred and intolerance22.

  1. The Dialogue got its big start with A Common Word between Us and You, sent by the Ulema to Pope Benedict XIV. That missive is so full of al-Taqeyya & kitman that I created a new blog, Go Burn With Muhammad to expose it. Moe’s idea of Dialogue was ‘you surrender or we conquer you’. The modern Dialogue is more subtle, but the bottom line is the same.
  2. Many Muslims do not assimilate, they form enclaves and eventually demand the privilege of operating them under Shari’ah.
  3. The OIC is practicing projection. Islam is the propagator of hatred and intolerance. Those who doubt this fact should read the litany of hateful and violent Qur’an verses in the Calcutta Quran Petition.

On page 27, paragraph h gives us another important clue. They are going to push for a protocol to ICERD. The protocol, unlike the resolutions passed by the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, will be binding international law, enforcible by the ICJ. The Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards is currently writing it.

Existing international laws on incitement to religious hatred including the International Convention on All forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief, the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the country in which they live, the Declaration on the rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities and the relevant UN Resolutions must be implemented.

Violation of the above listed covenants is an issue that can and should backfire on Islam. If they were strictly enforced, the Qur’an, hadith, tafsir & Shari’ah would be banned, proscribed by law. We need to make that happen. To the best of my knowledge, the International Qur’an Petition is the only effort along that line.

It is likely that much of the resolution will be boilerplate from previous editions. The ’08 Defamation of Religions Resolution is a likely model. My analysis of the Nov. 8 ‘ 08 draft will either put you to sleep or rouse you to sign the petition at Open Doors.

October 19, 2009 Posted by | United Nations | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: