Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Defamation of Islam: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory


While USCIRF, Human Rights First and Christian news media dance around their bonfires emitting victory whoops, those with more common sense analyze the resolution and wait for the backfire.  I bring you tidings of the first backfire from International Islamic News agency . [Emphasis added.]

Informed sources in the OIC General Secretariat in Jeddah stated clarified that the Islamic Group, represented in the OIC, in international fora did not back down from its position, pointing out that the Western countries, which lost all rounds of voting on the previous resolution on anti-defamation of religions, has made a major concession by accepting the new version of the resolution which aims to the same goals of promoting tolerance, non-discrimination and violence based on religion, which is exactly what the OIC is seeking in order to provide a decent living for Muslim communities in the West.

The OIC did not back down, it was Western Civilization that lost the previous votes and made a major concession.  The new resolution maintains the  same goals as its predecessors.

Return to  http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/Draft_Resolution_Defamation_Religions.pdf, which passed in the HRC last year and study ¶14, 15 & 16.  Exactly what are they demanding?  For those lacking the patience & diligence to do the research, here is my blog post detailing it: Defamation of Religions UNHRC March 25 ’10. The tactical objective of the series of resolutions is national & international legislation criminalizing all questioning and criticism of Islam.

The sources pointed out that the West’s acceptance of the new resolution reflects an implied admission of a problem already exist within their communities.

That is a clear restatement of the obvious; there was no need to say it.

…to put an end to the campaign of hostility to Islam, better known in the west as Islamophobia.

Can you obtain a clue from Allah’s word?  From Moe’s word??  From Islamic law???

  • 2:190. And fight in the Way of Allâh those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. [This Verse is the first one that was revealed in connection with Jihâd, but it was supplemented by another (V.9:36)].
  • 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
  • 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.
    • Sahih Muslim 19.4294 …If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them…
    • Al-Hedaya Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1, Page 141: The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the sacred writings which are generally received to this effect.
      • This marginal note found on page 140 sums it up nicely: “War must be carried on against the Infidels, at all times, by some party of the Muslims. “

What did Allah command Muslims to do?  What did Moe tell them to do?  What does Islamic law say about who initiates & perpetuates the conflict?  Our attempts at self-defense  by raising the alarm are characterized as a “campaign of hostility” but Allah’s imperative to conquer us is just, righteous & peaceful.  Yeah, right.

According to the sources, the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had had invited the OIC to lead the efforts with both Washington and the European Union to draft a new resolution to ensure the foundations adopted by the previous resolution, giving a wider range of freedom of expression, but at the same time the sources confirmed that the decision (defamation of religions) has not been abandoned, and it is still valid, and can be resorted to if necessary.

Our Secretary of State and an NGO are behind the new tactic.  Meet the new resolution, same as the old resolution.  Guess what they will introduce to the General Assembly in September.

While we are beset with an implacable existential foe, the best we can muster are Morons & traitors. Western Civilization is in great peril.

March 29, 2011 Posted by | Hillary, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Combating Defamation of Islam: only the name changed


In the wake of negative publicity over two high level assassinations in Pakistan, the OIC switched tactics, adopting a style suggested by Article 19 and other NGOs.  This new style replaces the ‘defamation of Islam’ concept with ‘negative stereotyping’, ‘stigmatization’, ‘discrimination’ & ‘incitement to violence’ against ‘persons’ based on their religion.

If anyone can find a significant difference between ‘defamation’ and ‘negative stereotyping’, please post it in the comments.

Recall what Ban Ki-moon said about Fitna, the short documentary by Geert Wilders which put the Qur’anic imperatives and Islamic actions side by side for easy comparison. Ban said it was ‘hate speech’ & “incitemen’; that the right of free expression was not involved.

Whenever we bring up the fact that Islam sanctifies & mandates genocidal conquest featuring terrorism as a victorious battle tactic or the fact that its 52 year old founder consumated marriage to 9 year old  Aisha, we will be accused of ‘negative stereotyping’ and ‘inciting’ ‘hatred’ & ‘violence’.  The name has changed, the strategy has not: cut the watchdog’s throat to prevent him from warning of impending danger.

On March 24, the Human Rights Council passed two resolutions by acclamation:

http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/combating_intolerance_neg_steretyping.pdf

http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/A_HRC_16_L.10.pdf

My analysis of those resolutions is in these blog posts:

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization

Freedom of Religion and Belief: For Muslims Only!

Article 19 & SCIRI hail those resolutions as a great victory. In fact they represent a tragic defeat for truth, justice & liberty.  They represent victory of al-Taqiyya over truth.  A skunk dyed solid color still stinks. A rattlesnake with its rattles cut off remains deadly.  These resolutions continue the outrageous demand that Islamic blasphemy law be imposed upon us, making these blog poswts illegal.

If you have any doubts about this fatal fact, consider the statement of  Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC, concerning International Judge the Koran Day. Here are some highlights.

  • “the worst example of extremism”
  • need for a normative approach to discourage such practices
  • Prof. Ihsanoglu urged the international political elite to take the necessary steps with a view to avoiding recurrence of such acts of extremism that could inflame religious sentiments with grave repercussions towards interfaith harmony as well as global peace, security and stability.

Those are code phrases for international and national blasphemy laws, backed up by intimidating threats of riot and war.

The whole ball of feces is predicated upon two false premises:

  1. “Islam is a religion of peace” and an “equally valid path to God”.
  2. “Muslims have a right to practice Islam”.

In fact, Islam is jihad. Jihad is offensive warfare.  Jihad is established as the ‘original religion’ of Islam; commerce & agriculture are stipulated as alternatives to jihad.  Abandoning jihad for commerce or agriculture is cursed by Allah.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

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

Therefore, the right to practice Islam includes a right and demonic mandate to conquer us. It is not possible for such an egregious evil to be a right!  If we have a right to live, secure in our persons, property and liberty, then there is no right to practice  manifest  and propagate Islam.  Choose one, the two can not coexist.

March 24, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Defamation of Religions March ’11


Defamation of Religions March ’11

A letter from Article 19 and numerous other human
rights groups to the
UNHRC and member states urges them to vote against resolutions
condemning

  • defamation
  • denigration
  • vilification
  • negative stereotyping
    [omitted from list]

    • of religions.

The primary issue is exploitation of blasphemy laws
to persecute minorities and perpetrate injustice against individual
members of minority groups. The secondary issue is the rights of
freedom of expression and belief.  People should be free to
discuss religious ideas and practices openly, free from threat of
prosecution & persecution.

This issue flows directly from Islam’s literalism,
absolutism & supremacism.  The narrative of Islam tells us
that Muhammad received divine revelation through the agency of Jibril,
at once confirming and superseding earlier scriptures.  Because Moe
is the seal of the prophets, his revelation is
final.  Because Moe said that Allah said that it is from Allah, it
is perfect.  That makes Islam right and
everything else wrong.

Surah Al-Ma’idah 33 specifies the punishment for
waging “war against Allah and and his Messenger”, listing options from
expulsion to execution. Tafsir Ibn Kathir defines “wage war” in the
following terms: “`Wage war’ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict,
and it includes disbelief
, blocking roads and spreading fear in
the fairways.” Disbelief, opposition & contradiction are capital
offenses in Islam.  That makes any affirmation of Christian faith
a capital offense subject to the death penalty. Because only Allah has the right to be worshiped, you have
no right to worship otherwise.

For the practical application, we must turn to
Shari’ah, as codified in Reliance of the Traveller. First, we should
examine the penalty for apostasy and the penalty applied to dhimmis who
violate Islam’s stricture.  Both apostates and offending dhimmis
are subject to  execution.

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.

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
.

If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the
caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed,
and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.

Dhimmis: conquered Jews & Christians dominated
by Muslims, suffer certain restrictions under Islamic law. Examine them
carefully.

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply
with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life,
reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or
theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress,
wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum”;

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the
Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not
razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly
display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,)
recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their
funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to
build new churches
.

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:

-1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or
marries her;

-2- conceals spies of hostile forces;

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-4- kills a Muslim;

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

What is impermissible to mention?  For the
answer, we turn to a list of 20 acts which entail apostasy.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-8- to mockingly say, “I don’t know what faith
is”;

-9- to reply to someone who says, “There is no
power or strength save through Allah”; “Your saying `There’s no power
or strength, etc,’ won’t save you from hunger”;

-10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person
says, “This is through the decree of Allah,” to reply, “I act
without the decree of Allah”;

-11- to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever
(kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning
he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in
Arabic, also “kafir”);

-12- when someone asks to be taught the
Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, “La ilaha ill Allahu
Muhammadun rasulu Llah” (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the
Messenger of Allah) ), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

-13- to describe a Muslim or someone who wants
to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

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

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

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

-16- to
revile the religion of Islam
;

-17- to believe that things
in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence
independent of the will of Allah;

-18- to deny the existence
of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens
;

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

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

There are others, for the subject is nearly
limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

Previous resolutions demanded that member states
pass & enforce legislation prohibiting and punishing violation of
those rules.  They specify associating Islam with terrorism and implicitly
condemn Fitna & the MoToons.

The deadline for submitting draft resolutions is
Thursday March 17; the 16th session concludes March
25.   No draft resolutions have been listed in the extranet
and none were listed in the email document release notice.  It is
likely that the resolution will be introduced at the last moment and
rammed through in a hurry.  It is possible that the OIC will
follow the precedent set by withdrawing the draft resolution condemning
International Burn the Koran Day and abort the resolution rather than
see it defeated.

Now is the time to strike, while the iron is
hot.  Go to http://www.congress.org/
to send emails to President Obama, your Representative & Senators
demanding a vote against the resolution.  HR 141
is still bottled up in committee with little hope of being voted out
for a floor vote before the HRC votes on their resolution. Mention it
to your Rep. and urge him to cosign it and push for its passage.

March 14, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , | 1 Comment

Hillary’s Freudian Slip?


The first paragraph of this excerpt from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s address to the opening of the UNHRC should raise some concern. I have highlighted the last two sentences of that paragraph.  It appears that she conceives of the HRC as a country instead of a council.  Even the United Nations is not a nation, a sovereign entity. The footnote does not help.  If she did not intend to expand the HRC or its parent organization into a sovereign entity, then the footnote should have corrected the slip.

The paragraph begins with the first sign of insanity: assertion of a possibility of improving a failed institution whose majority bloc is fundamentally opposed to the council’s mission.  Any sane person would know that there is no possibility that one out of 47 members of the council could move it onto the right track.

A few paragraphs later, Hillary launches into a sore subject: the annual ritual of condemning ‘defamation of Islam’.  She pretends opposition to the ritual & resolution, but we know from the “Freedom of Belief and Expression” jointly sponsored by the State Department and Egypt, that Obomination actually favors censorship.   The transparently false distinction between ‘defamation of Islam’ and ‘negative stereotyping of Islam’ stinks like an open sewer.

Insults?  Stating the fact that Islam’s 52 year old founder married the six year old daughter of his bosom buddy, as recorded in muttawir ahadith, is not an insult, it is a statement of historical fact, as is his consummation of that marriage three years later, when Aisha was nine.

Stating the fact that Islam declared and is prosecuting perpetual warfare against the rest of the human race is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. Since the Qur’an has been translated into multiple languages and posted on the internet, it is possible for us to read it and discover the truth for ourselves.

Stating the fact that terrorism is an intrinsic, foundational sacrament of Islam is not an insult, it is a statement of fact.  The six canonical hadith collections, like the Qur’an, have been translated and uploaded so that we can  learn that Moe was made victorious by terror. The fatal facts become clear  when certain Qur’an verses are read in the light of Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 and 1.7.331.  Those are 3:151, 8:12, 8:57, 8:60, 9:12033:26, 59:2 & 59:13. Yet the resolutions complain that “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with terrorism and human rights violations.”.

So Hillary proposes replacing the resolutions with “concrete steps to fight intolerance”.  Would she tolerate vampires if they were real instead of mythological?  But she insists that we tolerate the continued existence and expansion of a piracy cult which has murdered an estimated 270,000,000 people since it began its depredations in 622.

Why  would any sane person tolerate a piracy cult that asserts a divine mandate to conquer the entire world;  declaring the lives and property of non-believers  not to be sacred?  They declare open season on us and we are supposed to tolerate it.  Someone’s  head is so far up her anus that she can  perceive neither objective factual reality nor justice.

Respect & tolerance must be reciprocal, but Islam is supremely intolerant.  The Qur’an curses us and calls us the worst of living creatures. Islam can not tolerate criticism or questioning because it is false, woven of stories plagiarized from previous faiths.

Islam’s Shari’ah law prescribes the death penalty for any negative expression about Allah, Moe and their damned cult. The same draconian rule is imposed on conquered Christians.  This annual attempt to impose their rule on us is part of their program of world conquest. We must elect a President who will jam it up their snouts!

[…] In 2009, the United States joined the Human Rights Council because President Obama and I believed we could make a difference by working with you on the inside rather than standing on the outside merely as a critic. And over the past 18 months, we have worked together. We’ve reached across regional lines in an attempt to overcome what hobbles this country[i] more than anything else, our divisions as member states. The unity of purpose we have forged with respect to Libya offers us an opportunity to continue that progress.

[…]For example, in this session we have an opportunity to move beyond a decade-long debate over whether insults to religion should be banned or criminalized. It is time to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression and pursue a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs.

[…][i] council more than…

March 2, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Defamation of Religions 2010


The General Assembly vote on the Defamation of Religions resolution [Word Document] was not unexpected, nor was the slight decline in support for the resolution.

The resolution has no enforcement mechanism, it is an exhortation, not law.  Unfortunately, it affords undeserved legitimacy to national blasphemy laws which are used to persecute minorities in Islamic dictatorships.

To make matters worse, there is a parallel process whose outcome will be a binding protocol to ICERD which will be legally enforcible. The information I have gathered is reported in these blog posts:

Human rights belong to humans, not to institutions.  There is no human right to be shielded from criticism of evil actions or intentions which are propagated in the name of religion.

Shari’ah, particularly Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 8, which lists 20 ‘acts’ which ‘entail apostasy’. In short, any negative statement about Islam, Moe, Allah or the Qur’an is punishable by execution [o8.1-8.2]. For the law’s applicability to non-Muslims, see o11.10 & o9.14.

While I vociferously object to the entire resolution & its antecedents included by reference, there is one provision which stands alone as a perfect reason to reject the entire concept of “defamation of Islam”.

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

wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

wrongly associated with terrorism

I have frequently quoted the relevant ayat & ahadith in numerous posts. I will link them here, and let those who are unfamiliar with them follow the links while the rest of us advance to the Sira.

Allah said that he would “cast terror” but “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;” Allah said that he cast terror, resulting in death, captivity, dispossession & destruction, but “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;”.

Moe said that he was made “victorious with terror” but “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;” For those who don’t have a clue yet, I provide quotes from the oldest extant biography of Islam’s Profit: Guillaume’s translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah.

These quotes come from devoted followers, not from enemies.

Ishaq:322 “Allah said concerning the pebbles thrown by the Apostle, ‘I threw them not you. Your
tossing them would have had no effect without My help. But working together, We
terrorized the enemy and put them to flight.”
  • “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”
  • “We terrorized the enemy and put them to flight”

Which one do you believe?

Ishaq:395 “Muslims, if you listen to the unbelievers you will retreat from the enemy and become losers. Ask Allah
for victory and do not retreat, withdrawing from His religion. ‘We will terrorize those who disbelieve. In
that way I will help you against them.'”
  • “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”
  • “We will terrorize those who disbelieve.”

Which one do you believe?

Ishaq:368
“We carried Ka’b’s head and brought it to Muhammad during the night. We
saluted him as he stood praying and told him that we had slain Allah’s enemy.
When he came out to us we cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet
praised Allah that the poet had been assassinated and complimented us on the
good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast
terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for
his life.'”
  • “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”
  • “Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.'”

Which one do you believe?

Ishaq:437 “So Allah cast terror into the hearts of the Jews. Then the Prophet said, ‘The
Jews have declared war.'”
  • “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”
  • “So Allah cast terror into the hearts of the Jews”

Which one do you believe?

Ishaq:468 “Allah brought down the People of the Scripture Book. I forced the Qurayza
from their homes and cast terror into their hearts. Some you slew, and some
you took captive. You killed their men and enslaved their women and
children. And I caused you to inherit their land, their dwellings, and their
property. Allah can do all things.'”
  • “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”
  • “cast terror into their hearts”

Which one do you believe?

Ishaq:326 “If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned.
Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah’s enemies.”
  • “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”
  • ” Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah’s enemies”

Which one do you believe?

Ishaq:326 “Allah said, ‘No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.’
Muhammad said, ‘I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was
given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These
five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.'”
  • “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”
  • ” I was made victorious with terror”

Which one do you believe?

Take a closer look at that quote from page 326. Moe was given five privileges by Allah, privileges not given to any Prophet. These are privileges given by Allah to his final messenger, the founder of Islam:

  • taking booty
    • ransoming prisoners
  • victory with terror
  • entire earth is his prayer ground
  • most powerful words
  • booty made lawful
  • power to intercede

Winning with terror is a special privilege from Allah. Got a clue yet?  If this blasphemy does not cause you to curse, go out and hang yourself, you are a waste of life.

Ishaq 523 When the apostle had finished with Khaybar, God struck terror to the
hearts of the men of Fadak when they heard what the apostle had done to
the men of Khaybar.
  • “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”
  • ” God struck terror to the hearts of the men of Fadak…”

Which one do you believe?

Ishaq 461
According to what al-Zuhri told me, at the time of the noon prayers 

Gabriel came to the apostle wearing an embroidered turban and riding on a mule with a saddle covered with a piece of brocade. He asked the apostle if he had abandoned fighting, and when he said that he had he said that the angels had not yet laid aside their arms and that he had just come from pursuing the enemy. ‘God commands you, Muhammad, to go to B.   Qurayza. I am about to go to them to shake their stronghold.’…

The apostle passed by a number of his companions in al-Saurayn before he got to B. Qurayza and asked if anyone had passed them. They replied that Dihya b. Khalifa al-Kalbi had passed upon a white mule with a saddle covered with a piece of brocade. He said, That was Gabriel who has been sent to B. Qurayza to shake their castles and strike terror to their hearts.’

  • “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”
  • ” …to shake their castles and strike terror to their hearts.'”

Which one do you believe?

How is Islam associated with terrorism?  Who made that association??  What is wrong with it???  Do people have a right to live unmolested, without invasion, conquest & enslavement or not?  Does Islam violate that right?

The entire premise of the resolution combating defamation of religions is a lie.  Human Rights First reveals the vote: 79,67,40.  How in Hell could 79 nations vote in favor of that travesty of justice and 40 abstain from voting against it?  There are 57 Islamic nations, 62 are either deceived, intimidated or sucking Islam’s oil & money teats.

Lovers of life, liberty & justice are in the minority. The aggressors and their allies rule the UN. We are out voted. These annual resolutions will continue to pass in the HRC & GA every year, and the protocol to ICERD will eventually be written, voted on and ratified unless we rise up and raise Hell.

We have only one recourse: to counter attack by exposing Islamic doctrines & practices to the eyes of the world.  We must make the campaign to impose Shari’ah too painful to pursue.

Three international human rights covenants contain provisions which require that Islam be proscribed by law. Nobody will enforce them.  Our task is to disrespectfully demand enforcement of those provisions.  The evidence is outlined in the International Qur’an Petition.  What other defense do we have? Please read, sign, share and promote the petition. Make it go viral! The link is to a blog post which contains links to covenants and the evidence of Islam’s violations.  You can copy it, send it by email and cross post it.   If not us, who?  If not now, when?  If you want your grandchildren to live securely in freedom and prosperity, you must take action now.

December 23, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Defamation of Religions Resolution Passed in Third Committee


Draft was adopted with 76 votes in favor, 64 against and 42 abstentions.

GA Third Committee Revised Draft Resolution “Combating defamation of religions”Development [Eye on the UN]

The link is to an earlier version, prior to the substitution of vilification for defamation.  The Volokh Conspiracy indicates that it was the more recent  amended version which was approved.

76–64 with 42 abstentions.
http://volokh.com/2010/11/24/un-general-assembly-passes-another-resolution-urging-nations-to-forbid-defamation-of-religion/
81–55 with 43  ’09  26

-5    9            -1

Many of the news reports  mention the decreasing level of support for the resolution.  So it got five fewer votes in favor and nine more in opposition. Big deal, it still passed.  While the trend is encouraging, it is not satisfying.

The U.N.’s press release is ambiguous, leaving uncertainty about the identity and content of the draft which was voted on.

The draft resolution on the Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, would have the Assembly condemn all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, as well as any incitement to religious hatred through the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media.  It would go on to emphasize 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”.  Nicholas Nihon of Belgium, the main sponsor, noted with regret that in order to achieve consensus, the text carried no reference to the right of persons to change their faith, or not to adhere at all to any religion or belief.  Action on the draft was preceded by the introduction of another draft by Morocco on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, on combating defamation of religions that would, among several points, have the Assembly express deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated 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]

These similar provisions fly in the face of the Qur’an’s five explicit and two implicit references to casting terror and two statements by Moe in which he bragged about winning with terror.  Have any of these idiots read The Qur’anic Concept of War? Why would a Pakistan army training manual use such language?

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

 

(i) To ensure that, in accordance with appropriate national legislation and in
conformity with international human rights law, the freedom of all persons and
members of groups to establish and maintain religious, charitable or humanitarian
institutions is fully respected and protected;

The obvious connection with the Holy Land Foundation trial can not be ignored. Zakat of 2.5% is assessed on wealth and transactions. 1/8 of zakat is allocated to those “fighting in Allah’s cause”.

(l) To promote, through the educational system and other means, mutual
understanding, tolerance, non-discrimination and respect in all matters relating to
freedom of religion or belief by encouraging, in the society at large, a wider
knowledge of different religions and beliefs and of the history, traditions, languages
and cultures of the various religious minorities existing within their jurisdiction;

This provision is an obvious demand that our schools be used to indoctrinate students with hagiographic images of Islam, falsely portraying it as a “religion of peace”  They are waging war against us, trying to out breed & subvert us and we are supposed to tolerate it. Yeah, right.  We are supposed to respect a war cult whose members believe that they have a divine mission to conquer us. Yeah, right.

This vote by the third committee sets the stage for final passage by the General Assembly next month.  That will give Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan and others immoral support for the local laws used to persecute minorities.

On a parallel track, running under the radar, the HRC’s Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards is working on a protocol to inject the resolution’s provisions into ICERD, giving them the force of international law.  Few know about this, nobody is doing anything to stop it. Now is the time to rise up and raise Hell!   For liberty’s sake, sign, publicize, promote and share this petition:  International Qur’an Petition.

November 24, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , | 1 Comment

Free Speech vs Shielding Islam from Critics


Free Speech vs Shielding Islam from Critics

The controversy over attempts to squelch “defamation of religions” is
heating up. Individuals and organizations are speaking out. One of my
Google Alerts  brought my attention to UN to consider anti-blasphemy laws proposed by the Organization of Islamic Conference, would make criticism of Islam illegal in America at Saynsumthn’s Blog.

The lead article, a press release from CFI,  is
followed by a year old video clip of Christopher Hitchens and Lou Dobbs discussing the recent
resolutions.  After that, we get down to business: a panel discussion on  the conflict between free speech and religious sensitivities.  The subject at hand is Islamic demands for legislation to shield their deen from criticism.  International PEN sponsored the event.

Several participants are not native speakers of English and some of the concepts under discussion are not easy to express, so much of the discussion is difficult to listen to.  Half of one exchange  has been covered by several blogs including Front Page Magazine.
Pakistan’s Ambassador let fly with some heated remarks and hauled tail when a Canadian human rights advocate responded forcefully.  In my view, the Ambassador’s rant deserves more scrutiny, which it will receive presently. [Superscripts in the text are linked to my comments.
Use your back button to return to the text.]

This video is huge. With a download speed of 52K,  it took a while to buffer and drained a
great deal of memory. I foolishly clicked a link before rewinding to
the interesting  part, and wound up repeating the process.

From the PEN American Center, United
Nations Side-session Panel Discussion with Dr. Agnes Callamard,
director, ARTICLE 19 (UK), Professor Tariq Ramadan (Switzerland), Mr.
Budhy M. Rahman, program officer, The Asia Foundation (Indonesia);
Moderated by Mr. John Ralston Saul, writer, president of International
PEN (Canada).

 

International PEN and its national centers are extremely
concerned about ongoing processes in the United Nations aimed at
combating defamation of religions. We are also concerned about an
initiative by the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards,
established in 2007 by the Islamic Conference (OIC) and a group of
African countries, to draft a treaty that would ban religious
defamation. Human Rights protect individual human beings, not
institutions or religions. Criticism of religions and religious
practices must be allowed, in particular when religions are viewed from
a political point of view. As organizations representing writers,
artists, and journalists of all faiths and none, we warn against any
regulations prohibiting criticism of any religion or any set of ideas.

Against this background we have asked a group of high profile
scholars, writers, and human rights defenders to join us for a side
event in Geneva on the afternoon of September 16 in Room XXI of the UN
Building.

Each year for the last decade, the UN and its human rights
commission/council have debated and passed resolutions combating
defamation of Islam/religions.  Those resolutions give immoral
support to local blasphemy laws, which  facilitate oppression
& persecution of minorities  under Islamic  regimes.
The OIC wants them to be given the force of law so that critics
of Islam can be prosecuted in the West.  International PEN
mentioned the Ad Hoc Cmte. which is working on a binding protocol to
ICERD.  Not much is known about the cmte.’s work and most people
are unaware of it. My series of blog posts on the subject, including
quotes from and links to the available  documents, have been
compiled into pdf files which you can download for study at leisure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7DC0spr5Gg&feature=player_embedded

[1:05:08]

Ambassador Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the UN,
Geneva  says he needs more  than one minute.. two?
wanna limit my freedom of expression?  Plenty of opportunity
to talk in this building.  But not before this meeting, which
needs to hear from me because I speak not only for Pakistan but for the
Islamic countries here.  The President doubts it. Gets three
minutes; declares himself “coordinator of the OIC”.  ,…

I
think what you have started here is an unnecessary debate because we in
the Islamic world do not look at this as a debate between freedom of
expression and freedom of religion.1
We are not
opposed to freedom of expression, what we are opposed to is the abuse
of this freedom to insult a entire religious faith and
belief system  as well as the followers of the faith.2
Let me say that we–what we are seeking is equal treatment for
Muslims especially in  the West. And we believe that we are being
denied this equal treatment because of double standards which Mr.
Ramadan has also spoken about and we believe that this attitude on the
part of the West is a example of sanctimonious arrogance. 3

Laws in the West do protect religious beliefs and there are countries
that have blasphemy laws in the West itself. I can give you the names
of the countries that do have them: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland,
Germany, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland
and I can tell you each and every article in their constitutions which
gives them these laws on blasphemy.  The problem sir is also very
apparent in the way that the West treats Muslims and the views and
beliefs of Muslims and the way it treats for instance, antisemitism.
There are laws in Western countries that will put a person in
jail for antisemitic statements or denying the Holocaust.4




That is a treatment that is not extended to Muslims in this part of the
world.5 The facts speak
for themselves. We have before us the cartoon issue.6
We have before us the minaret–the ban on minarets in Switzerland.  The posters in this
ban campaign showed minarets designed as missiles.7 The linkage to
showing that Muslims are in a way people who resort to violence and are
dangerous persons.8 There is this film by Geert Wilders called
Fitna which equates our holy book the Qur’an with Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
Not a single verse from the Qur’an has been quoted to demonstrate that
Muslims or our Qur’an or our belief promotes violence by Mr. Wilders.9

The ban on the burqa10, the ban on the mosque in Manhattan11, and this ‘burn a
Qur’an day12‘– they are all manifestations of the same thing that is going on–that is taking place in the West13. Mr. Obama has taken a position against the burning of the
Qur’an.14 And what has he been labeled as?15 A Muslim and he himself is denying that he is a Muslim as if being a Muslim is a crime16. What if he is a Muslim?17 That is somehow–we feel that it is extremely offensive18.

There is racial profiling against Muslims19. Even if you are the most respectable
person you are separated and you are put into a different pew when you
are at an airport.  Everyone of your bags is opened; you are
stripped down to your –your clothes are stripped off your body; these
are the realities of treatment that is being extended to Muslims in the
West today20.

So it is not about the defamation of Islam, sir, it is about the victimization of Muslims that has to be addressed and that is what we are seeking here.21

We are being linked to terrorism whereas terrorism has no religion22;
there are examples of terrorists in every religious denomination.
The IRA were not Muslims, they were Catholics.  So — and there
are several other examples of terrorism that are [unintelligible] .
Instead of promoting your view and other Western views; instead of
promoting a dialog between Islam and other religious denominations os
actually serving the cause of those who want to use religion and want
to use this disinformation against Islam23 to promote greater
victimization of Muslims.  There is a failure and actually a
refusal to try and understand what we are trying to say. [1:11:01
Interrupted by Raheel Raza]

 

“Thank
you very much. I am a Canadian of Pakistani heritage and I would like
to totally rebut what the honorable Ambassador here has said. I
have lived in the West for over 25 years, I don’t know where he’s
been living, but I think Muslims have more freedom in the West than
they ever have in many Muslim lands. When you talk about inter-faith
dialog there is absolutely no intra-faith dialog going on between the
Muslim communities and dialog is a two way street.  Mr.
Ambassador, sir, I’m responding to what you said, so it is rude of you
to get up and leave. However, I will say this for the rest of the
audience here, that this is  absolutely unacceptable; I mean
freedom of speech is the most important human right we have and I
totally support freedom of expression even if it is against my faith.
When he speaks of  Geert Wilders, Geert Wilders has the
absolute freedom to say what he wants; it doesn’t affect me personally,
and neither does it harm my faith.  The Western world, the
Canadian Prime Minister and the American President were the first ones
to condemn the burning of the Qur’an by the American Pastor Terry
Jones. I would never have the freedom to stand up and speak as I do
here in my own country of birth.  So certainly, when we are
talking about equal treatment of Muslims in the West.  And also I
would like to comment about Professor Ramadan spoke at length about
western values–the western world; this is not a debate between
Muslims and the West and unfortunately that is what it comes down
to that is being divisible  we are speaking here about human
rights that extend to all faiths. And lets get over this victim
ideology that we are Muslims and we are being persecuted and lets talk
about the freedom of everyone in the room here today and lets get to
the point of freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.

1:13:22
Professor Ramadan answers some proceeding questions.  I am not
able to transcribe his remarks, his mind and mouth are not in synch.\
and I can’t type fast enough.  It is an important statement, which
needs to be considered carefully and deliberately. Watch the gestures
and expressions as you listen to his answer. He has  a recent op ed piece that may help to clarify matters.


 

 

  1. The
    debate is crucial because the OIC is demanding international and
    national legislation to criminalize all questioning & criticism of
    Islam. Islamic law expressly forbids all negative expression about
    Islam, its deity, Profit & scripture. Violation is punishable by
    execution. In essence, they want that law extended to and imposed upon
    us.  The journalists seek to preserve the right of free
    expression, which is essential to the maintenance of cemocracy &
    liberty. Liberty can not be preserved if we can not issue warnings of
    threats to it. If we can’t reveal the truth about Islam, we can’t issue
    those warnings.

    1. Acts entailing apostasy.
    2. Penalty.: scroll up to 613.
      1. Application  to Non-Muslims:
        1. o11.10 -5- or mentions
          something impermissible
          about
          Allah, the Prophet
          (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.
        2. 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).
        3. o9.14
          When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: 025) considers
          the interests (0: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the
          prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or
          ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
    3. Defamation of Religions UNHRC March 25 ’10
      03/26/10  Details of the resolution and graph of the vote
      trend showing declining support.
    4. 4U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext
      & Context

      09/08/08  This post contains vital information about
      the
      documents which serve as a basis for the treacherous resolutions passed
      by the General Assembly & Human Rights Council. It also has a
      link
      to the prime source of UN resolutions.
    5. Ad Hoc Committee: New Resolutions
      03/20/10  Competing Nigerian & American drafts in
      pursuit of a binding protocol to ICERD for the purpose of
      outlawing these blog posts.
    6. Letter from OIC to Ad Hoc Committee
      11/13/09  This is about the drive to criminalize criticism of
      Islam.
    7. Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper
      08/04/09  The cmte. President’s outline of the
      program of
      censorship.
    8. AdHoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission
      08/03/09  Detailed analysis of the OIC’s proposal to
      censor critics of Islam.
  2. Their
    scripture says that Jews “earned Allah’s wrath” and “Christians went
    astray”. It says that Allah, men and angels curse us. It describes us
    as the worst of living creatures. But we must not be allowed to reveal
    how their Profit married a six year old girl, murdered critics and was
    a terrorist.
  3. Is there a better example of hypocrisy?
  4. The U.S.A. does not have a blasphemy law, neither
    does it outlaw Holocaust denial.  We allow open debate.
  5. Criminalization
    of Holocaust denial is not a service to a religion, it is an
    exaggerated and mis-applied fear of a Nazi revival.  Holocaust
    denial is not analogous to factual & rational criticism of
    Islam.
  6. The Motoons,
    like most good comedy, include an element of exaggeration. They reflect
    the fact that Muhammad was, by his own admission, a terrorist. Here is
    what he said:: ” I have been made victorious with terror (cast in
    the hearts of the enemy),” and  “Allah made me
    victorious by awe
    , (by His frightening my enemies) for a
    distance of one month’s journey. ” The quotes come from Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 & 1.7.331.
  7. See the image and relevant quote at Andrew Bostom’s  site. Erdogan said that the
    “Minarets are our swords”.
  8. To the extent that Muslims are believers; to the extent that they implement
    Allah’s imperatives they are
    dangerous and violent.
  9. Fitna
    involves
    several verses from the Qur’an which are documented here: Fitna: Supporting Documentation 03/27/08. Those verses prove
    clearly and beyond doubt  that Islam is intrinsically violent and
    aggressive, by design.
  10. The burqa ban combines a tangential swipe of the
    cat’s paw with a valid security interest. Anonymity can lead to
    impunity.
  11. There are valid reasons for objecting to the
    mosque of triumph at
    ground zero. Even Tariq Ramadan agrees that the Park 51 project is an
    unnecessary provocation and insult to the surviving victims of the
    attack.  If built, it will serve as a psychological boost to the
    proponents of terrorism.
  12. Besides being a tangetial attack on Islam, burn
    a Qur’an day
    served to raise public awareness of the content of that vile volume of
    lies & threats.  The books that were torn and burned were
    translations, not sacred books.  Only the Arabic text is
    considered sacred and authentic.
  13. Growing  public awareness of the threats
    posed by Islam,
    both militant, demographic and political, is bringing about increasing
    resistance & objection to the spread of the war cult.
  14. President Obama condemned burn a Qur’an
    day.  He has not
    condemned Bible burning with equal intensity.  Neither has he
    vociferously condemned burning Christians and churches. His bias
    is evident.
  15. President Obama was identified as a Muslim long
    before his condemnation of bun a Qur’an day. His
    Muslim father makes him Muslim by default. His expressed admiration for
    the Adhan is another marker.  His enrollment in primary schools as
    a Muslim  documents  the obvious.  His conmversion
    to  Christianity is an obvious political convenience.  His
    expressed “duty”  to protect Muslims from  negative
    stereotyping  stands outas clear evidence; it is not in his job
    description!
  16. Is membership in the Mafia a crime?  Should
    membership in an  organized crime syndiicate be a crime?
    Moe began his criminal career with raids on camel caravans returning
    from trade missions.  He graduated to invading local Jewish
    settlements, then to invading nearby kingoms.  He sent extortion
    letters to his intended victims.  He said that the “keys to the treasures of the world” had been given
    to him. He told his companions: By Allah, I am not afraid that
    you will be poor, but I fear that worldly wealth will be bestowed upon you as
    it was bestowed upon those who lived before you. So you will compete
    amongst yourselves for it, as they competed for it and
    it will destroy you as it did them.” He said” The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people
    before us
    , This is because Allah saw our weakness and
    humility and made them lawful for us.”.
  17. A Muslim President, when America is under attack
    and threat of attack by Islam, is an exemplar of treason, the
    equivalent of a Nazi President in WW2.
  18. Clarify that; the pronoun refers to:
    1. the ‘Muslim’ lable
    2. the denial
    3. the implication that Islam is criminal
      1. does the implication belong to President Obama ?
  19. Who hijacked those aircraft? Was it elderly
    Baptist widows? Who
    tried to blow up Times Square? Was it a middle aged Catholic?  Whp
    are the perpetrators of Islamic acts of terrorism?  When we hear
    hoofbeats, we look for horses, not unicorns.
  20. Subjecting all passengers to intrusive searches
    is  time & money wasting idiocy.  The simple solution:
    exclude Muslims from  mass transit.
  21. What is in the titles of the UN resolutions?
    “Combating defamation of Islam”…”combating defamation of religions”.
    If the issue is ‘victimization, why is that not reflected in the
    titles?
  22. Examine what Allah
    said:

    1. We shall cast terror
    2. I will cast terror
    3. to strike terror
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

      1. Examine what Muhammad said: “I have been made victorious with terror
      2. Examine what Brig. S.K. Malik wrote in “The Qur’anic Concept
        of War
        “,
        a training manual for the Army of Pakistan. “Terror struck into the
        hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself.
        Once a condition of terror into the opponens heart is obtained, hardly
        anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and
        the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon

        the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him.”

  23. Does anyone perceive the cognitive dissonance in
    this sentence?  Inter-religious dialog is a weapon against Islam?

    1. use religion
    2. use disinformation against Islam
      1. to victimize Muslims

October 17, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness | , , , , , | 1 Comment


Two Circles published a screed titled Hypocrisy in the guise of freedom of expression which accuses “the West” of hypocrisy.
After making it clear that the Facebook group “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” is on their mind, they launch their argument.

The Western society has always claimed to be protector of Freedom of Speech. But is it Islam bashing in the garb of Freedom of Speech? Does the West really practice what it preaches? Before Freedom of Speech, the West used to lecture all Asian/ African countries about human rights. But when its own hypocrisy about human rights was exposed in Iraq and Guantanamo and in cases of illegal detentions, West’s human rights chants have reduced drastically.

In my country, free speech is one of our foundational rights, assured by the First Amendment to our Constitution.  That right is essential to the establishment  & maintenance of a free republican form of government.  It is necessary that the citizens be free to name and shame both domestic and foreign threats to their liberties.  We must have freedom of expression to alert others to approaching danger: any attempt to encroach on our liberties or the system which establishes & preserves them.

Much to the dismay of  M. Zajam & other Muslims, the right of free speech includes Islam bashing, which is a coarse and imprecise way of raising the alarm of approaching danger.  Personally, I prefer more refined and precise techniques, which involve exposing the dirty details of Islamic doctrine and practice . Both are allowed under our First Amendment’s free speech clause.

There is no human right more essential than the right to life, which Islam denies with Moe’s declaration that our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims (Sahih Bukhari  1.8.387) and its declaration of perpetual war against us (Surah At-Taubah 29).  There is one way to alienate that right: by initiating aggression. When Iraq trained “the magnificent 19” at Salman Pak,  casus belli was established.  Holding prisoners of war at Guantanamo or anywhere else is not a violation of human rights.  Declaring and prosecuting war on us is the violation of human rights.

Likes of Norris are nowhere to be seen or heard when Holocaust denier is jailed. Each European country has law against denying Holocaust. Did we have a page on Holocaust cartoons on Facebook, the ultimate place of liberty?

My country is not European. our system of laws is different from theirs. We do not outlaw Holocaust denial.  I have seen  that sort of cartoon and claims on Facebook.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam have recommended severe punishment for Blasphemy. But only Islamic connection makes it to headline. Even UN General Assembly has passed several resolutions which called upon the world to take action against the “defamation of religions”.

Islam has not been defamed, it is infamous, by design.  Moe set out to build a reputation for barbarian rapine for the purpose of intimidating his intended victims (Surah Al-Anfal 57, Surah Al-Hashr 13).

Every community reacts in same way when their religious feelings are hurt. It is rightly so.

American Christians withstood such works of art as “Piss Christ”  as well as numerous books and movies without rioting or murdering anyone.  The U.N. resolutions mentioned above  are not limited to cartoons, they condemn all criticism of Islam including blog posts and documentary videos.

May 31, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , | Leave a comment

Why the Defamation of Religions Resolution is Unacceptable


Two paragraphs of the latest HRC Defamation of Religions resolution  contain expressions which clearly demonstrate the reality that makes such resolutions unacceptable.

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,

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;

Lets get the critical clauses separated from the chaff for examination.

  • Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism
  • terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or group
    • need to reinforce the commitment to promote respect for all religions

Is the association of Islam with terrorism intrinsically wrong?  Islam’s canon of scripture & tradition contain relevant evidence which answers that question in  the negative.

[3:151]
Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with God, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

[8:12]
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

[8:57]
If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse, with them, those who follow them, that they may remember.

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

[33:26]
And those of the People of the Book who aided them – God did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.

[59:2]
It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from God! But the (Wrath of) God came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers, take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!

[59:13]
Of a truth ye are stronger (than they) because of the terror in their hearts, (sent) by God. This is because they are men devoid of understanding.

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.

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),  

Allah said that he would cast terror into the hearts of disbelievers. Allah  told the Muslims to make an example of those they defeated. Read 8:57 in the light of the last sentence of 59:2.

Allah  commanded Muslims to build and maintain military strength with which to terrorize their intended victims.  Then he did cast terror, exemplified in 33:26 and 59:2.  Allah told the Muslims that they were stronger than their victims because  the victims were afraid of them.

Muhammad bragged about being made victorious by terror.  In view of these facts found in Islam’s canon, the association of terrorism with Islam is found valid.

General S.K. Malik  in The Qur’anic Concept of War, makes the issue crystal clear.  His discussion of terror as a strategic concept  spans pages 54-60, beginning on page 48 of the  pdf file.  This quote comes from page  59.

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in  itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponents heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him.

The fact that such terror is discussed as strategy in a Pakistani military training manual  puts the lie to Pakistan’s assertion that Islam & terrorism are not linked.  It becomes obvious that the OIC, on behalf of Islam, has set out to render us defenseless before Islam’s onslaught of terror.

Disproving the popular lies about Islam; that it is peaceful, compatible with liberty & democracy,  by reference to Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence does not constitute hate speech or incitement to violence.  Using loaded terms such as racism, negative stereotyping, intolerance & defamation throws up a smoke screen  Labeling us as bigots and hate mongers who incite violence is a thinly veiled attempt to shut down debate and shield Islam from criticism and exposure.

Islam seeks to impose its blasphemy law upon us, to cast us into prison and fine us for telling the truth about their war cult.  Geert Wilders in on trial for exposing Islam in his short documentary, Fitna. In that documentary, and a speech to the Dutch Parliament, Wilders quoted the Qur’an. I documented his quotes in another blog post.  See Fitna: Supporting Documentation and Moral Standing: the Complaint.

Islamic law imposes a complete prohibition on criticism of Allah, Muhammad and their system of perpetuating warfare.  These quotes from Reliance of the Traveller should make it clear to you.  These are items in a list of acts which entail apostasy, penalized by death. The list begins at  O8.7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

-8- to mockingly say, “I don’t know what faith is”;

-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);-15- to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

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

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

-18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

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

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

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

Another list, beginning at  O11.10 ,  includes acts which break the treaty of protection, subjecting the dhimmi to the death penalty. These items should be a clue for you.

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-4- kills a Muslim;

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

The previous list should be sufficient to indicate what a dhimmi can’t say about Islam.  When they speak and write about “negative stereotyping” &  “defamation”,  that is what they have in mind.

Our enemies outnumber us in the UN. We can not win  the crucial votes.  We must counter attack, using their own weapon against them.  ICERD, ICCPR & CPPCG contain provisions which would, if enforced, require that Islam be proscribed by law.  The International Qur’an Petition points out those critical provisions and shows how they are violated by fundamental Islamic doctrines.   I want you to read and sign that petition and send it to everyone you can hope to influence. Exhort your friends, family and associates to sign and forward it.  We need to make it go viral.

Islam is not worthy of respect; it denies the sanctity of our lives and property; declares war upon us, and curses us. Why then should we accept demands for promoting respect and tolerance of Islam?

March 27, 2010 Posted by | United Nations | , , , | 1 Comment

Indonesia: Blasphemy Law Abuse


From time to time, documents from IHEU, Freedom House,  and similar non-governmental organizations will make reference to the abuse of blasphemy laws to deny the human rights of religious minorities.   An  editorial in the Jakarta Globe, from December 30, is a case in point.

The article calls for the government and religious leaders to take “concrete and substantial steps” to stop the abuse of “religious freedom in Indonesia”. The editorial calls for amendments to the laws and reform in their enforcement.  The specific reference is to ” article 156a of the Criminal Code.

Jakarta Globe 12/30/09
Abuse of Religious Freedom Hurts Indonesia And Renders God Defenseless

Interestingly, the government often has turned a blind eye when radical Islamic groups violate this very article. Most of the “deviant” sects and individuals charged under this law practiced their beliefs peacefully, yet it has been conservative groups like the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and the Indonesian Mujahideen Council (MMI) that have incited hostilities against these very groups. If the government was to enforce this law strictly and without bias, those conservatives and radicals proven guilty of spreading hatred against humanity through demonstrations, raids, religious gatherings or jihadi Web sites would have been put behind bars long ago.

Such a change would require revision of the 2006 civil registration bill that requires Indonesian citizens to identify their religion on their national identity cards (KTP). The category for religion could either be removed entirely, or people from minority groups could finally be allowed to acknowledge their real beliefs. This would decrease religious discrimination against those whose beliefs lay outside of the country’s six recognized religions. On this note, the government could further promote religious freedom by no longer officially acknowledging only six religions, but by embracing the multitude of religions and beliefs practiced in Indonesia.


The government also must address the violation of religious freedom and human rights made possible by the existence of religious institutions such as the Coordinating Board for Monitoring Mystical Beliefs in Society (Bakor Pakem) and the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI). Tasked with monitoring and resolving instances of deviant interpretation of religious doctrine, Bakor Pakem’s authority has increased state intervention in religious issues in a way that clearly violates the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.


Those excerpts from the editorial are sufficient to clarify the issue of undesired side effects of  “defamation of religion” resolutions and the proposed protocol to ICERD.  The UNHRC is scheduled to take up these Issues March 23.  Now is the time for us to make our objections known.

March 15, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: