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

Big Lie: “UN drops call to outlaw ‘defamation of religions’


There is a sucker born every minute, because if we did not suck, we would not survive. Unfortunately, there is a surplus of adult bottom feeders who will cheerfully take and run with any bait.  A Google search for UN + “Defamation of Religions” turned up several news articles in addition to those in yesterday’s alert.

  • The US Is Not Opening The Door To Limiting Freedom of Speech

    Human Rights First – ‎5 hours ago‎
    Human Rights First has worked for years to reverse the tide of defamation of religions at the UN , and has welcomed HRC resolution 16/18 as well as this most recent General Assembly resolution. We believe it is important for governments to now
  • Turkey and America

    The Cutting Edge – ‎Dec 18, 2011‎
    [will] help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.” It unfairly held up the American experience for 
  • Free speech is in the cross hairs

    Prospectus – ‎Dec 18, 2011‎
    Although the latest resolution refers to “incitement” rather than “defamation” of religion (which appeared in the 2005 resolution), it continues the disingenuous effort to justify crackdowns on religious critics in the name of human rights law. 
  • Speak Not of Evil

    Canada Free Press – ‎Dec 19, 2011‎
    The Obama administration started down this ill-advised road by cosponsoring in 2009 an OIC-drafted resolution in the UNHuman Rights Council that condemned “defamation of religion” – read, Islam. That initiative helped advance the Islamists’ 

 

UN drops call to outlaw ‘defamation of religions
msnbc.com
AP The call on countries to prohibit “defamation” had been included in a decisive break from the polarizing focus in the past on defamation of religions.”
UN General Assembly Abandons Dangerous “Defamation of Religion
Human Rights First
“Today’s unanimous vote marks a decisive break from the polarizing focus in the past on defamation of religions.” said Human Rights First’s Tad Stahnke.
UN condemns religious intolerance, drops ‘defamation
Reuters Africa
religious intolerance without urging states to outlaw “defamation of religions,” an appeal critics said opened the door to abusive “blasphemy” laws.
UN condemns religious intolerance, drops ‘defamation
Reuters India
L had won majority approval in UN rights bodies in Geneva and at the UN General Assembly for annual resolutions on “combating defamation of religions.

 

Blogs 1 new result for “Defamation of Religions”
UN condemns religious intolerance, drops ‘defamation’ line for first
By Louis Charbonneau
For the first time in more than a decade, the U.N. General Assembly on Monday condemned religious intolerance without urging states to outlaw defamation of religions, an appeal critics said opened the door to abusive blasphemy laws.
FaithWorld

 

Web 3 new results for “Defamation of Religions”
UN drops call to outlaw ‘defamation of religions‘ – Beverly Hills
Teen BHEF met Tuesday to approve their revised by-laws and present awards of appreciation to Sandy West of The Beverly Hilton and Corrine Verdery of Oasis
www.bhcourier.com/article/World/World/UN…/83854
UN drops call to outlaw ‘defamation of religions‘ – TODAY News
The U.N. General Assembly on Monday condemned religious intolerance without urging states to outlaw “defamation of religions.”
today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45726263/
UN drops call to outlaw ‘defamation of religions‘ – Newsvine
‘Governments should now focus on concrete measures to fight religiously motivated violence … while recognizing the importance of freedom of expression,’
world-news.polls.newsvine.com/_…/9561504-un-drops-call-to…

Only two out of twelve articles reflect objective factual reality, the rest swallow the bait.  That is not a good sign.  Lets sneak around the gate of the defamation meme and examine the core issue. Words have meanings, but Muslims assign their own meanings to common words.We must not assume that those words mean what they say when spoken by Muslims.

The opening of the 15th session of the Human Rights Council was marked by an address from Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC.

The new session of the Council is also coincides with  with regrettable events that are
deliberately meant to defame religions as well incite hatred, xenophobia, discrimination and
violence against religions, in particular Islam. The increasing incidents of violence and
discrimination on the basis of religion must not be ignored. We hope that this and other
related  issues remain an important priority in the work of the Council.

The most recent and unfortunate in the series of such events was the announcement
pertaining to Bum a Koran Day. It was highly provocative towards the religious sentiments
of Muslims everywhere in the world and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
On August 24,2010 I issued a cautionary statement on the plan to burn the Holy Qur’an and
urged the American people as a whole as well as the world community to reject the call of the
Gainesville Church pastor[….]

In this regard all xenophobic campaigns of fear mongering and discriminatory
measures – both in policy and practice – which restrict, prohibit or discriminate against of any
religion such as ban on the constriction of minarets, organization of events that incite hatred
like Burn a Koran Day, and other discriminatory measures must be strongly condemned by
the international community. A recurrence of such events substantiate OIC’s call for a
normative approach to deal with this menace that continues to pose a clear ‘and present danger
to peace, security ‘and stability in the regional as well as the global context. Such acts fuel
discrimination, extremism and mis-perception leading to polarization and fragmentation with
dangerous unintendecl ancl unforeseen consequences.[…]

[…]such events which endanger peaceful coexistence
between nations and create an environment conducive to violence

The first three sentences quoted above are loaded with meaning which must be dissected and examined.

regrettable events

In this case, one event: International Burn The Qur’an Day, which was scheduled for 09/11/10 to commemorate  the accursed abomination by highlighting the Qur’an verses which inspired it.  The event was called off under intense government pressure.

deliberately meant to

How does anyone know the intention of the event unless it is clearly stated? The stated purpose of the event was to foster awareness of Islamic doctrines and their real world consequences. But Ihsanoglu assigns other intentions which he projects onto the event from afar.

defame religions

Defamation is false and malicious.  What is false about connecting the dots; Allah’s sanctification of terror, his casting terror resulting in death, captivity & dispossession, Moe’s bragging about terror making him victorious and the abominable act motivated by Allah’s imperative, threat and promise?

incite

Pastor Jones was not inciting anyone to do anything more than incinerate the book which inspired the “Magnificent 19”. Nothing was to be said, implied or illustrate to incite anyone to assault Muslims. He issued no war cry or call to arms and implied none.

hatred

It is only natural for a nation under attack and threat of attack to hate its attackers and the damnable doctrines which motivate them and inspire them to attempt genocide & politicide.  No incitement is needed to make intelligent and informed Americans hate Islam.

discrimination

People naturally make choices. If we choose to avoid association with and proximity to persons made inimical to us by their ideology, that is discrimination, but it is not evil.

Hating a man for his skin pigment is evil. Hating a man because he adheres to an ideology which enjoins him to kill or enslave you is not evil, it is common sense.  Warning people about that ideology and its consequences is not inciting hatred.  Hatred is incited by the ideology and the acts it inspires.

violence

When Pastor Jones tried and burned a Qur’an in March of 2011, rioting broke out in Pakistan.  The riots were not incited by anything in Gainesville, they were incited by what was preached in the mosques at Jumah Salat.  The politicians and media dare not make the connection between the riots and the end of Friday afternoon sermons.  Instead, they prefer to blame an unrelated event separated by thousands of miles and several days.

events that incite hatred

Beirut Embassy bombing

USS Cole bombing

WTC1

WTC2

Beslan Massacre

Mumbai Massacre

London subway bombing

Madrid rail bombing

endanger peaceful coexistence

Trying and burning a Qur’an did not start a war; what did?  have you forgotten? When such a threat is issued, why do we lift Satan’s tail and pucker up?

Defamation, while prominently cited, is not the issue. Examine this transcript of remarks by Pakistan’s Ambassador at the 16th session of the HRC.

Pakistan (on behalf of
the OIC)
Mr. Zamir Akram
03/24/11

Thank you Mr. President. On behalf of the OIC countries, I have the
honor to introduce the draft resolution entitled “combating
intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of and
discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons
based on religion or belief contained in document L.38.

Mr. President: this resolution addresses a number of
issues over which the OIC has been expressing concern over the years.
having said  that, I wish to state categorically that this
resolution does not replace earlier resolutions on combating
defamation.  which were adopted by the Human Rights Council  and
remain valid.  This resolution L.38  is an attempt on the
part of the oic to build consensus on an issue of vital importance
not only to Muslims but to people of all religions  and beliefs by
identifying  ways and means to deal with the growing problems of
religious incitement and discrimination and incitement to hatred and violence based on
religion or belief.

At the heart of this resolution are a series of practical steps
which need to be taken by states in order to address
this problem. This resolution addresses the core issues in a manner
that is acceptable to all including in  a legal sense, thus
seeking to bring all stake holders on board.  The OIC has gone
the extra mile to maintain a spirit of constructive engagement with all
partners during this process of consultation.

Our primary objective is to ensure that this text,
which will hopefully be adopted by consensus, will bind us all to the
commitments contained therein and oblige us all to ensure compliance
with its decisions.

Mr. President: Muslims around the world continue to be confronted
with ever increasing instances of intolerance, negative stereotyping,
stigmatization, discrimination  and violence on the basis of their religion; Islam.
Objective academic studies reveal that following the end of the cold war, the
pernicious doctrine of a clash of civilizations signaled the start of a narrative that required
the construction of a new enemy  to replace the global threat of
Communism with the so-called menace of Islam.

The reprehensible acts of terrorism on September 11,
2001 provided the trigger to unleash the clash of civilizations to the
forefront of global politics.  In the general Western view, no
distinction was made between a handful of extremists and terrorists  and
the overwhelming majority of peaceful and law abiding Muslims
living around the world. To make matters worse, against the backdrop of
the recent global economic crisis, these fears of Islam and Muslims are
now being manipulated by irresponsible and bigoted Western politicians
to gain political mileage  in their countries, unfortunately, with
remarkable success.

Terms such as Islamofascists have become common.
Even the Qur’an has not been spared;  it has been compared to Hitler’s
Mein Kampf. More recently, it was tried for religious crimes and
burnt.  Minarets at mosques deliberately depicted on posters
as missiles, have been banned. There have even been restrictions on
shops selling halal food, while no such restrictions exist on kosher
food outlets which are similar.

There is also increasing discrimination against Muslims in various
parts of the world.  They are being subjected to racial profiling
which confronts them with intractable problems at every border where
they are checked and re-checked.  Their businesses are repeatedly
scrutinized and their places of worship disallowed or desecrated.
They are made to feel unwelcome in societies where they live as
minorities.

One prominent politician has recently organized
hearings that seek to put on trial the entire Muslim community and are
obviously designed to stoke fears against Muslims in that
country.

Mr. President, the efforts by the oic to defend
our religion, our holy book and our prophet  and our people have
often been misrepresented as being contrary to international human
rights principles and laws, and in particular, rejected as undermining
the freedom of expression or opinion. The reality is different.
It is therefore appropriate in such a position, for us to try and
explain our faith and our principles. I hope, Mr. President, you will
give me a bit of extra time to do so.

Mr.  President: the Qur’an lays great emphasis on the
need for religious tolerance  as well as freedom of thought and
opinion.  In chapter 2, verse 256, the Qur’an states there is no
compulsion in religion.  In chapter 18, verse 29, the Qur’an
maintains that truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe
and him who please disbelieve.  As regards freedom of
thought and opinion in Islam, the Qur’an states, in chapter 16, in verse 125 invite
all to the way of your creator with wisdom and arguments that are the
best and most gracious.  The Qur’an and the traditions of the holy
prophet also lay emphasis on the treatment of non-Muslims.
According to Prophet Muhammad, (PBUH), he who hurts a non-Muslim
citizen of a Muslim state I am his adversary and I shall be his
adversary on the day of  judgment.

Mr. President: it is also instructive for us to know
that we Muslims are not only bound by temporal laws to respect human
rights but by divine enjunctions contained in the Qur’an.  The
basic human rights as ordained in the Qur’an  include the
rights to life,  individual freedom, justice, equality, privacy, association
and basic necessities of life or minimum standard of living. These
obligations also include respect for women,  equality among human
beings, freedom of expression, protection from arbitrary imprisonment
and the right to oppose tyranny and injustice.  the last sermon of
the prophet (PBUH) is, in itself, a comprehensive charter of human
rights.  Islam has even established a complete code for the right
of combatants in war. Measures for the protection of all combatants as
well as homes and property belonging to them.

Mr. President: I have dwelt at length on these characteristics of Islam
because I want to underscore the common principles that underlie our
faith and the requirements of international law including international
human rights and humanitarian law.  Indeed, given the tremendous
contributions by Islam in various fields of human activity over
the  years, these principles have contributed to the evolution of
the very principles that we are trying to uphold today.

Mr. President, we sincerely believe that that irrespective of our
different cultural backgrounds and traditions, there is a shared
interest for all of us to show respect for each other’s religions and
beliefs  as well as to prevent any advocacy of religious hatred and
intolerance, discrimination and incitement  on the basis of religion or
belief.

The resolution under consideration seeks to achieve
these laudable objectives through a range of actions by states
including administrative steps, measures to criminalize imminent
violence, training and awareness programs, promotion of dialogue and
understanding at all levels.   The resolution also calls for
a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace
and in this context it decides to convene a panel discussion in the
Human Rights Council.  We hope that this resolution will be
adopted by consensus.  Before concluding, Mr. President, I would
like to place on record my appreciation for the support and cooperation
of all my colleagues in the oic  and in particular, members of
the core group of ambassadors that we set up to work out this
resolution.  I have truly benefited from the wisdom and advice and
without their support this text would not have been possible.  I
would also like to thank the Secretary General of the oic whose
support and guidance made this resolution possible.  In addition I
would like to express my appreciation — my sincere appreciation to all
our partners in the various groups, especially the ambassadors of the
U.S. and the U.K. on behalf of the European Union for their cooperative
and constructive approach.  Let me also thank the ambassadors from
the African group, grulac and Croatia for their cooperation and
engagement in this effort. I am glad that this oic initiative has
met with broad cross regional support which will send out a strong
message of unity from this council. Finally I would  like to thank
the experts from Pakistan, the U.S., the U.K. and other countries for
their tireless efforts to work out the text of this resolution. I thank
you Mr. president.

Akram’s screed contains numerous lies, which have been dissected in another blog post.

number of issues

To see what Akram was talking about, read the Islamophobia Report for April ’11.  The three principal exemplars are the Motoons, Fitna and the above mentioned Qur’an burning.

Motoons

The ostensible objection to depicting Moe is idolatry. There are two problems with that. First, Moe ain’t supposed to be the deity, Allah is. Second, nobody would possibly make those cartoons an object of idolatry.  The real reason for objecting to their publication is their depicting Moe as a terrorist.

Moe could not have possessed a bomb because he died prior to the invention of gunpowder.  Moe cast terror by a series of barbarian attacks, deliberately building a reputation for barbarian repine, so that he was more feared than Allah.  Moe bragged about being made victorious by awe & terror. What more do you need to know to make a judgment?

Fitna

The 15 minute documentary juxtaposes Qur’an verses and ahadith with the rabid rants of Imams at Jumah Salat and resulting acts of terror and rioting. Fitna does not incite violence, it exposes incitement. Fitna: Supporting Documentation 03/27/08  documents the ayat quoted in the documentary. Though words have meanings, we must be aware of the meanings intended by Muslims.  HRC 16/18 & Draft resolution XVII appear to concentrate on incitement.

Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audiovisual
or electronic media or any other means;
(e) Speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred
that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;
(0 Adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence
based on religion or belief;

 

incitement

What is it? Am I inciting hatred and violence by exposing the damnable doctrines of Islam which inculcate hatred and incite violence?  There is only one way to know the meaning: we must examine recent exemplary statements. This one, by Secretary Ban Ki-moon is dispositive.

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, Fitna constitutes hate speech & incitement not protected by freedom of expression.  From that statement, it is clear tha the intention of HRC 16/18 and Draft resolution XVII is to criminalize all criticism of Islam.

negative stereotyping

What is the difference between stereotyping and defamation?  Because Moe was a terrorist, who commanded Muslims to emulate himself, and because Allah commanded terrorism, Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and because selectivity is prohibited, all Muslims are potential terrorists.  To the extent that they are believers in Allah, his promise and his threat, they will eventually participate in an attack.  If it were not true, this paragraph would be defamatory. Even though it is true, it is negative and it is stereotyping, condemned by the resolutions.  In any case,

defamation

Islam is terrorism!  Allah sanctified it & engaged in it. Moe bragged about being made victorious by it.  To those bigots who who deny the obvious facts previously documented by reference to the Qur’an & hadth, this is defamatory. Previous resolutions condemned associating Islam with terrorism. These resolutions omit that meme, so, has the UN abandoned the defamation meme?  HELL NO!!!  And I will prove it.  Draft resolution XVII ain’t the only resolution passed by acclamation Dec. 19. I know something you don’t know but are about to find out.

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;

¶10, on page 3 of Draft resolution XVIII,  emphasizes that Islam must not be equated with terrorism, which it is by the testimony of its own deity & founder previously cited.  Equation with terrorism fits the defamation meme, and it has not been dropped or abandoned by the UN, it lives on in a concurrent resolution. The suckers have swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker.

¶12(j), on page 4, belies the assertion that freedom of expression is not threatened.

To take all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with
international standards of human rights, to combat hatred, discrimination,
intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance
based on religion or belief, as well as incitement to hostility and violence, with
particular regard to members of religious minorities in all parts of the world;

For the Morons among my readers, “all necessary and appropriate action” means legislation to combat “incitement to hostility and violence”, which means: Fitna, the Motoons and this blog post.

No doubt the Moronic chorus will begin chanting: “that ain’t in the resolution under discussion”. To which I gleefully reply:  Ye Suckers!!! Assumptions make asses of you!

Adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence
based on religion or belief;

¶5(f) on page 5 of Draft resolution XVII, proves you wrong. “Adopting measures to criminalize” is a code phrase for legislation. They are demanding passage & enforcement to establish criminal punishment for publications such as Fitna, the Motoons and this blog post. Remember, Ban Ki-Moon defined the terms for us.

“U.N. Tackles Religious Intolerance without Limiting Free Speech

Legislation to criminalize the publication of Fitna, the Motoons and this blog post will not limit free speech.  Yeah, right ;=(

December 21, 2011 Posted by | Freedom Of Speech, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Defamation of Religions vs Negative Stereotyping: SCIRF Gets It Wrong


Leonard Leo, chairman of the board of SCIRF, testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights  on the International Religious Freedom Report. There is a move underway to defund SCIRF, presumably because its mission conflicts with Obamination’s Islamophilia.

While I sympathize with the SCIRF and believe that it should be preserved, I take issue with Leo’s position on the resolution passed by the HRC last March and currently before the 3rd Committee prior to a General Assembly vote in December.

I do not contest the fact that SCIRF was instrumental in steering the resolutions in a new direction, I take issue with the assertion that the  resolution has been substantially improved and its negative impact on freedom of belief & expression substantially reduced.  Only the rhetoric has improved, the meaning, intent and effect are not improved.

Defamation of Religion in the United Nations — Intolerance Resolution Takes the Place of Defamation Resolution: Over the past decade, resolutions in the UN General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council on the so-called defamation of religions sought to establish a global blasphemy law.  USCIRF’s engagement with the State Department, the U.S. Congress and specific UN member states helped bring about a notable decrease in support for these resolutions over the past three years.  It is an example of the catalytic and coordinating role that the Commission has played.

Since 2008, the resolutions were supported by only a plurality of member states.  Due to this loss of support, the UN Human Rights Council in March 2011 adopted, in place of the divisive “combating defamation of religions” resolution, a consensus resolution on “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”  The resolution properly focuses on protecting individuals from discrimination or violence, instead of protecting religions from criticism.  The new resolution protects the adherents of all religions or beliefs, instead of focusing on one religion.  Unlike the defamation of religions resolution, the new consensus resolution does not call for legal restrictions on peaceful expression, but rather, for positive measures, such as education and awareness-building, to address intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief.

intolerance

I can not and will never tolerate the practice & propagation of a doctrine which mandates that we be killed or subjugated, our property seized and our widows raped and our orphans sold into slavery.  By God, I stand on the rights seized by the founders, which they enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.  I will not accept demands that I tolerate the intolerable.  I will not abide by laws, national or international, demanding silence in the face of approaching evil.

stereotyping

Allah commands Muslims to wage war against us in 8:39 & 9:29. Those imperatives are confirmed by Moe’s Sunnah in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 and other hadith. They are codified in Shari’ah: Reliance of the Traveller O9.8-9.9. Allah promises Muslims admission to his celestial bordello if they wage war and threatens them with eternal damnation if they shirk.  Allah gives extra credit for a better seat in his bordello if they take any step to injure or enrage us.

So most Muslims “don’t do that / don’t believe that”. Oh, don’t they? Islam is not cafeteria Catholicism, as made clear by 2:85: “Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. “.

If Muslims “don’t do that”, then how did the Hindu, Assyrian & Armenian genocides happen?  How do you explain shouts of Takbir in the school at Beslan and the aircraft over New York City?

Which Muslim is a believer who fights in Allah’s cause, killing and being killed [9:111] and which is a hypocrite whose Islam “will not exceed their throats.” [Sahih Bukhari 5.59.638]?

protects individuals

Who is going to go to Egypt and protect the Copts and their homes, businesses & churches?  Will you send the Marines to Kenya & Nigeria to protect Christians there?  Who will protect Christians in Pakistan?  You and whose army, 24/7/365?

You do not protect individuals by passing resolutions, you protect them with “boots on the ground”.  You can only protect indigenous Christian minorities by eliminating the Muslims who murder them with impunity.

The cartoonists did not assault or kill any Muslims; they did not destroy any property. Muslims, stirred up by rabble rousing Imams at Jumah Salat did that. Exactly how do those resolutions protect Muslims?

Islam is not defamed by revelation of the fatal facts linked in previous paragraphs. Muslims are not threatened or stereotyped by revealing those facts. Silencing criticism of Islam would not protect Islam from defamation, neither would it protect Muslims; it would only remove our ability to warn our fellow citizens of approaching danger.

education

The malignant & malicious practice of al-Taqiyya & kitman is not education, it is indoctrination.  Islam is not a religion, neither is it peaceful nor is it great. Islam is intra-species predation.  Education will happen if intelligent and rational people read the Qur’an, hadith & Shari’ah.  What currently happens in our educational & religious institutions is indoctrination.

concrete details

I have prepared two tables comparing the defamation & stereotyping memes. The tables are complemented by relevant quotes from the Secretaries General of the OIC and UN, followed by evidence to further clarify the issue. Bold, blue, underlined text is hyperlinked to source documents.

defamation stereotyping
Muhammad had coitus with a nine year old girl. Muhammad had coitus with a nine year old girl.
God would never select an unrepentant sinner as his final prophet. Muslims tend toward pedophilia because Muhammad is their role model.

Regardless of which standard of conduct is adopted, stating the fact revealed by Aisha, that she was nine years old when Moe consummated their marriage, will be criminalized and condemned.

defamation stereotyping no religion should be equated with terrorism
I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast
terror

You are more awful as a fear


victorious with terror

I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast
terror

You are more awful as a fear


victorious with terro

I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast
terror

You are more awful as a fear


victorious with terro

Islamic doctrines incite terrorism. Muslims are terrorists because they emulate Moe. Islam =
terrorism.

No  matter how you slice it; whichever protocol  they follow, truthful statements about Islam must be outlawed and condemned.  Defamation || negative stereotyping is a distinction without a difference.

concrete examples

In this quote from a speech to the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu implies that  Geert Wilders’ Fitna and the Danish Cartoons incite religious hatred & violence.

It is clearly established that international law and in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966 forbids any incitement to religious hatred. Article 20 of this Covenant stipulates that “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” Despite this clear stipulation, the Attorney General of Denmark failed to see in the infamous Danish Cartoons issues on Prophet Mohamed, any incitement to hatred on bases of religion or belief. The same authority in the Netherlands did the same thing in the case of the film Fitna, produced by a Member of Dutch Parliament. Such negative or indifferent attitudes adopted by officials in certain Western countries which seem to condone acts of an Islamophobic nature, can only lead to legitimizing Islamophobia and enhancing discrimination against Muslims and exposing their well-being and safety to danger. [Speech 0f His Excellency Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General 0f the Organisation 0f the Islamic conference, at Columbia University 21/09/2008]

Ban Ki-moon also condemned Fitna.

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

 

incitement ?

Fitna

Fitna juxtaposes violent Qur’an verses and hadith with the rabid hate speech & incitement of several Imams and the resulting terrorism & riots. Fitna does not incite, it exposes incitement.

Motoons

The Motoons depict Moe as a terrorist.  They are humorous; they do not exhort or incite Kuffar to assault Muslims. Moe died before the invention of gun powder, but he was a terrorist by his own admission, having declared that he was “made victorious with terror“. He deliberately built a reputation for egregious barbarian rapine so as to terrify his intended victims, rendering them disorganized and effectively defenseless.

Quran burning

Pastor Terry Jones planned to hold a Qur’an burning 09/11/10. He chickened out, but in March of ’11, he held a four hour mock trial of the Qur’an with Arabic speaking experts on both sides of the debate and, having found the Qur’an guilty of inciting violence, burned it.

Muslims in Pakistan, on exiting from Jumah Salat, rioted, resulting in several deaths and considerable property damage. Pastor Jones did not incite violence, the Pakistani Imams incited violence in their rabid rants at Friday prayer services.

Ihsanoglu’s jaundiced view

 

The publication of offensive cartoons of the Prophet six years ago that sparked outrage across the Muslim world, the publicity around the film Fitna and the more recent Qur’an burnings represent incidents of incitement to hatred that fuel an atmosphere of dangerous mutual suspicion. Freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility. At the same time, violent reactions to provocations are also irresponsible and uncivilised and we condemn them unequivocally.[http://71.18.253.18/en/topic_details.asp?tID=239]

We have to be sure about what constitutes criticism but not incitement to hatred. For example, when somebody calls for burning of our holy book Qur`an, can it be considered as mere criticism? [http://71.18.253.18/en/topic_details.asp?tID=39]

The most recent and unfortunate in the series of such events was the announcement
pertaining to Bum a Koran Day. It was highly provocative towards the religious sentiments
of Muslims everywhere in the world and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
[Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu’s speech to the HRC Session 15.]

 

legal foundation

Moe ordered the murder of his critics; an example to be emulated.

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka‘b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka’b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka’b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad b. Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu ‘Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except ‘Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na’ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.

Shari’ah

Reliance of the Traveller, O11.10  lists five acts which break the treaty of protection exposing a Dhimmi to execution. This is the fifth item in that list: “or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.”  What is impermissible to mention? O8.7 contains a list of 20 items including: “to revile Allah or His messenger “, “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 “, “to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat”,  “to deny any verse of the Koran “, and “to revile the religion of Islam”.

In reality, the OIC seeks, through the UN, to impose Islamic blasphemy law on us, denying our right to warn our fellow citizens of the existential threat Islam poses to our lives, liberties & prosperity.   We were not stupid enough to outlaw criticism of Communism during the cold war, why should we outlaw criticism of Islam?

November 19, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

OIC: United Stand Against Intolerance ?


OIC: United Stand Against Intolerance ?

Last March, the HRC passed a new resolution which was said to abandon
the nefarious “defamation of religions” concept, substituting “negative
stereotyping” & “incitement”.  That is the official position;
divergent from objective factual reality. The distinction is without
difference, and the amended verbiage is persiflage.

That fact is exposed by a March 24 address to the
HRC by Mr.
Zamir Akram, Pakistan’s Ambassador.   He made it clear that
the new resolution does not abrogate previous resolutions, instead, it
confirms them.  His speech is dissected in detail here.

Mr.
President: this resolution addresses a number of issuesover which the OIC has been
expressing concern over the years. having said  that, I wish to
state categorically that this resolution does not replace earlier
resolutions on combating  defamation.which were adopted by the Human
Rights Council  and remain valid.  This resolution L.38
is an attempt on the part of the oic to build consensuson an issue of vital importance
not only to Muslims but to people of all religions  and beliefs by
identifying  ways and means to deal with the growing problems of
religious incitementand
discrimination and incitement to hatredand violencebased on religion or belief.

The Secretary General of the OIC also addressed the HRC on the subject of the new resolution.

OIC has a principled postition against
defamation of any  religion, dehumanization of the followers or
denigration of symbols  sacred   to
all     religions.    The
developments  including the ban of construction of minarets, the
attempts towards burning of Qur’an and the use of Islamophobia

as an instrument of electoral politics are ominous.  There is an
urgent need to initiate and sustain what I would like to term as
‘preventive  cultural    diplomacy’.
We   need  to  move beyond  event based calls
for action to create spaces for structured engagement   The
Human Rights   framework provides with a concrete basis for
this engagement.   We believe that tbe workshops on
incitement to hatred under the Durban mandate constitute and important
avenue for a synthesis  aimed at bridging the divergence of views.

The Secretary General has spoken out again, this
time uttering & publishing a lie so egregious that it must be
refuted immediately.  It is necessary to rub his snout in his mess
of deception.

 The OIC has never sought
to limit freedom of expression
, give Islam preferential
treatment, curtail creativity or allow discrimination against religious
minorities in Muslim countries.
  •  never sought to
    limit freedom of expression
    • OIC
      Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his dismay
      and
      disappointment at the release of the book despite
      the fact that he, and some leaders of Muslim countries, had personally
      written letters to the foreign minister of Denmark, urging the Danish
      government to stop the publication
      of the book because of its
      highly provocative and inciting content.[
      Khaleej Times Habib Shaikh]
    • Tajikistan,
      current
      chair of the Organization of the Islamic Conference
      (OIC) has
      sent an official
      request to the UN to pressure Norway to stop publication
      of a
      reprint of the book with scandalous cartoons featuring the prophet
      Mohammed. []
      The
      letter
      , addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, voices
      the concern of 57 members of the OIC and calls
      on the UN to “take measures against” the plan, reports Interfax. [
      http://rt.com/news/islamic-un-stop-cartoons/]
    • Pakistan
      said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the
      Netherlands to prosecute
      Mr Wilders for defamation and deliberately
      hurting Muslim sentiments
      , the official Associated Press of
      Pakistan
      news agency reported.”[
      BBC
      News
      ]

For the benefit of those suffering from anal cranial
juxtaposition, I will clear away the chaff:

  • never sought to limit
    freedom of expression
    • urging
      the Danish
      government to stop the publication
    • pressure
      Norway to stop publication
    • told
      the Dutch ambassador
      • to
        prosecute
        Mr Wilders

From the viewpoint of a rational and honest person,
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is a damned liar, having deliberately made an
egregiously untrue statement.  From the Islamic point of view, he
is not a liar because Islam does not recognize disbelievers as human,
denying our rights. They can not violate our freedom of expression
because we have none. Human rights do not apply to us in their point of
view.  The sanctity of life is conditioned on being Muslim.

[…]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[…] [Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387]

Having exposed the most egregious deception, I will
continue fisking this screed, which is being widely propagated. I
perceive that this and related articles are the first wave of a tsunami
of pressure focused on the next General Assembly session beginning
September 20.

As is my habit with target rich environments, I will
link my comments to superscripts in the text. Click the superscripts to
read the comments and use your Backspace key to return to the
text.

Istanbul, Turkey – The horrific
and tragic incident that happened in Norway reminds us again of the
importance of combating religious intolerance1
and promoting cultural
understanding2.




Anti-Islam and
anti-Muslim attitudes and activities3, known as Islamophobia, are
increasingly finding place in the agenda of ultra-right wing4 political
parties and civil societies in the West in their anti-immigrant5 and
anti-multiculturalism6 policies, as was evident in
the manifesto of the
Norway killer7.
Their views8
are being promoted under the banner of
freedom of expression9
while claiming that Muslims do not
respect that
right.




A few days before the
Norway attack, on 15 July in Istanbul, the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation (OIC) and the United States agreed to a united stand on
“[c]ombating intolerance10, negative stereotyping11
and stigmatization of12,
and discrimination13,
incitement to violence14,
and violence against
persons based on religion or belief15” through the implementation of UN
Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18.




The meeting –
co-chaired by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and myself, with
the attendance of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs
together with the foreign ministers and officials of OIC member states
and Western countries, as well as international organisations –
reaffirmed the commitment of the participants to the effective
implementation of the measures set in the resolution.
16



This was a major step
towards strengthening the foundations of tolerance and respect for
religious diversity17 as well as
enhancing the promotion and protection
of human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world18.




The OIC, which was the
initiator of Resolution 16/18, worked in close cooperation in the
drafting process with the United States and the European Union in
bringing about a breakthrough on 21 March.




The 2011 HRC
resolution is a genuine effort to usher in an era of understanding on
the issue of religious intolerance. It gives the widest margin of
freedom of expression, and reiterates the rejection of discrimination,
incitement and stereotyping used by the other or against the symbols of
the followers of religions.
19



The
OIC has never
sought to limit freedom of expression, give Islam preferential
treatment, curtail creativity or allow discrimination against religious
minorities in Muslim countries.




The Islamic faith is
based on tolerance and acceptance of other religions. It does not
condone discrimination of human beings on the basis of caste, creed,
colour or faith20.
It falls on all the OIC member states as a sacred duty
to protect the lives and property of their non-Muslim citizens and to
treat them without discrimination of any form. Those elements who seek
to harm or threaten minority citizens must be subjected to law. Our
strong stand condemning violence perpetrated against non-Muslims
whether in Iraq, Egypt or Pakistan has been consistent.




No one has the right
to insult another for their beliefs or to incite hatred and prejudice.
That kind of behaviour is irresponsible and uncivilised.




We also cannot
overlook the fact that the world is diverse. The Western perception on
certain issues would differ from those held by others. We need to be
sensitive and appreciative of this reality, more so when it comes to
criticising or expressing views on issues related to religion and
culture.
21



The publication of
offensive cartoons of the Prophet six years ago that sparked outrage
across the Muslim world, the publicity around the film
Fitna and the more recent Qur’an
burnings represent incidents of incitement to hatred22 that
fuel an
atmosphere of dangerous mutual suspicion. Freedom of expression has to
be exercised with responsibility23. At the same time, violent
reactions
to provocations are also irresponsible and uncivilised and we condemn
them unequivocally.




It is not enough to
pass resolutions and laws against religious incitement. We should also
be diligent in launching more initiatives and measures towards better
intercultural dialogue and understanding at all levels – the political,
social, business, media, academic and religious.




Resolution 16/18
includes an eight-point approach that calls for various measures to
foster tolerance, including developing collaborative networks to build
mutual understanding and constructive action, creating appropriate
mechanisms within the government to identify and address potential
areas of tension between members of religious communities, and raising
awareness at the local, national and international levels on the
effects of negative religious stereotyping and incitement to religious
hatred.




The implementation of
the 2011 HRC Resolution 16/1824 would take us a long way in
making our
world a more peaceful and harmonious place to live in.




###

* Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is the Secretary General of the
Jeddah-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization
of the Islamic Conference), an international organisation consisting of
57 member states. This article was written for the Common Ground News
Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 16 August 2011, www.commongroundnews.org

Copyright permission is granted for publication.

  • Search: “Ekmeleddin
    Ihsanoglu”+ “stop publication”
    • Results: 35
      •   Khaleej Times Habib Shaikh [Emphasis added.]

        2 October 2010 JEDDAH — The Organisation
        of the Islamic Conference has condemned the publication
        of the
        book Tyranny of Silence in Denmark.

        The book, containing blasphemous caricatures, hit the stores in Denmark
        on Thursday amid concerns over a backlash from the Muslim world.

        The cartoons were first published by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in
        2005, resulting in condemnation from Muslims around the world.

        OIC
        Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his dismay
        and
        disappointment at the release of the book despite
        the fact that he, and some leaders of Muslim countries, had personally
        written letters to the foreign minister of Denmark, urging the Danish
        government to stop the publication
        of the book because of its
        highly provocative and inciting content. [] Emphasising
        the moral responsibility of the political leadership of Denmark,
        Ihsanoglu said the publication
        of the book was a deliberate attempt to incite prejudice and animosity.

        This would undermine the ongoing efforts of the international community
        to promote understanding and peaceful coexistence among people of
        diverse religious and cultural backgrounds.

      • http://rt.com/news/islamic-un-stop-cartoons/Tajikistan,
        current
        chair of the Organization of the Islamic Conference
        (OIC) has
        sent an official
        request to the UN to pressure Norway to stop publication
        of a
        reprint of the book with scandalous cartoons featuring the prophet
        Mohammed. []
        The
        letter
        , addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, voices
        the concern of 57 members of the OIC and calls
        on the UN to “take measures against” the plan, reports Interfax.



    1. Religious intolerance indeed.
      We must tolerate Islam, but Islam is not obligated to tolerate Judaism
      or Christianity. Tolerance is a one way street

* whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted
[3:85}

* 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 ]. [8:39]

* those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers, it is they
on whom is the Curse of Allâh and of the angels and of mankind[2:161]

    1. Cultural
      understanding, yeah, right. They do not want us to understand Islam,
      they want us to accept a false image; a web of lies spun by Islam and
      its apologists. What passes for cultural understanding is really
      kitman: deception by obfuscation.
    2. Translation: resistance: Kuffar
      attempting to defend themselves and their culture. Phobia implies
      irrational fear and loathing. There is nothing irrational about
      loathing an institution which has a 1400 year track record of genocide,
      murdering an estimated 270*106  people.
    3. The VVP is not Nazi or fascist, it is
      democratic. The Secretary General is using loaded words as a smear
      tactic.
    4. The Immigrants in question are
      primarily
      Muslims, living as parasites on the state and breeding like rats. They
      tend to rape, riot and block the streets raising their butts to the
      moon. Whats not to oppose about that?
    5. Multiculturalism is the idea that
      an inferior culture which dominates women, assaults Queers, rapes
      indigenous girls, declares superiority, refuses to assimilate,
      threatens war, supports terrorism and constantly escalates its demands
      is equal to Western Civilization. Whats not to oppose about suicidal
      idiocy?
    6. Breivert’s Manifesto discusses ‘martyrdom
      operations’. “Yes, for certain religious members,

      certain measures are obviously in violation to biblical teachings but the amount of grace

      and divine
      goodwill generated at the point where you sacrifice everything (in the


      martyrdom
      operation) will provide you with an abundance of it, which will more
      than


      nullify any
      minor or serious sins committed prior to operation
      .” [pg. 846]
      On page 849 he lists three pieces of music to be played during
      ‘martyrdom operations’.  It is obvious that Breivert adopted enemy
      doctrine & tactics. It is obvious that he is not sane. While
      objective facts reproduced in the manifesto remain true and accepted by
      others, the manifesto is his alone. The manifesto is violent, see pages
      1028 & 1344; rational resistance is educational and political, not
      violent. Ihsanoglu is engaging in smear tactics, attempting to tar
      others with Breivert’s violence.

    7. Our views of Islam are founded on facts
      discovered in Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis &
      jurisprudence.  Check out ICCPR,
      Article 19. §1 guarantees the right to hold opinions. §2 guarantees
      freedom of expression.  The spewers of feces assert that rights
      are interdependent and cling bitterly to exaggerated ideas of Article
      20.
    8. In America we have the Declaration of
      Independence; God gave us
      the right to live;  & Bill of
      rights. “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.”
      If prohibited from truthfully communicating warning of approaching
      danger, we would be rendered defenseless. We perceive Islam to be a
      threat because of its declaration & prosecution of perpetual war.

 

 

  1. If they were sincere about combating
    intolerance, they would outlaw the Qur’an because it inculcates
    intolerance.  Is there anything more intolerant than declaring us
    the worst
    of living creatures
    , cursing
    us
    and declaring
    perpetual war
    against us?
  2. When we share the facts outlined in point 9 above, we are accused
    of negative stereotyping. Exposing
    the fact that Allah commands Muslims to wage war against us, Moe
    confirmed the imperative & implemented it and Islamic law codifies
    it is not negative stereotyping, it is revealing objective factual
    reality. It does not mean that every Muslim is violent, it means that
    Islam requires every Muslim to pray for, pay for and or participate in
    aggressive conquest.
  3. Should being a made member of the Mafia carry a stigma?
    Why then should membership in Moe’s war cult not carry a stigma?
  4. Should members of the Mafia be subject to discrimination? Should they be closely
    observed; suspected of criminal activity? Why then should members of
    the cult which sanctifies
    & celebrates terrorism not be suspected, observed
    and excluded from our societies?
  5. If incitement were to be combated, the
    Qur’an would be outlawed. Of course, that is not the intention of the
    resolution’s authors and few will read 8:65, 9:38-39, 9:123 & 61:10-12 to learn why it should be. The Motoons simply depicted Moe as a terrorist, which,
    by his own admission, he was. They did not suggest that viewers should
    assault or wage war upon Muslims. The associated violence was incited
    by Imams in Mosques, not by the cartoonists or publisher.  Fitna, the short documentary by Geert Wilders,
    displayed the incitement contained in the Qur’an, which flows through
    Mosques.  Fitna did not incite violence, Imams did, resulting in
    riots.  They are demanding that all criticism of Islam be
    outlawed, twisting and perverting language in the process.

CNN.Com’s European outlet has a reminder of what
the Secretary General said about Fitna, the documentary video by Geert
Wilders.

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

BBC
News informs us that Pakistan demanded prosecution.

Pakistan
said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the
Netherlands to prosecute Mr Wilders for defamation and deliberately
hurting Muslim sentiments, the official Associated Press of Pakistan
news agency reported.”

Wikipedia helps us to review the UN position.

 

After the
release of the film, a number of international organizations released
statements or otherwise responded to the film. United
Nations’
 Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon
 stated on
on March 28, 2008 that

I condemn, in the strongest terms, the airing of Geert Wilders’
offensively anti-Islamic film. There is no justification for hate
speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not
at stake here. I acknowledge the efforts of the Government of the
Netherlands to stop the broadcast of this film, and appeal for calm to
those understandably offended by it. Freedom must always be accompanied
by social responsibility.[133][134]

 

  1. If they really gave a damn about violence
    against persons based
    on their religion, they would be acting to protect Christians in Muslim
    dominated areas of Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria and
    other places where Christians are bombed, shot, burned and hacked to
    death with impunity.
  2. If there was any possibility of balanced & effective implementation the resolution, no Muslim
    would vote for it because it would require the outlawing of
    Islam.
  3. Tolerance respect
    for diversity? Really? Yeah, right. “Truly,
    the religion with Allâh is Islâm
    “. “Allâh!
    Lâ ilahâ illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He)
    , ”

    -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.

  4. What right is more fundamental than the
    right to life?  “then
    kill
    the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and
    capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every
    ambush.” “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.” Get a clue: our
    blood and property are not sacred to Muslims.
  5. The sentence is unmitigated
    hypocrisy. What did Ban Ki-moon say about Fitna? Something about “hate
    speech” & “incitement”. Oh, yes, he said that freedom of expression
    was “not involved:.   Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu  called it a
    “deliberate act of discrimination”  intended to “provoke unrest
    and intolerance.  Reality check: Fitna shows the  violent
    Qur’an verses side by side with the Imams who  invoke them and the
    resulting riots.  Describing is not doing.
  6. Like most Muslim screeds, this one is redundant. One lie must be
    pointed out: discrimination. Reliance of
    the Traveller is Islamic law. This provision affects conquered Jews
    & Christians.

    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 stree
    t;

    -5- may not build higher than
    or as high as the Muslims’ building
    s, 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
    .

    O11.6

    They are forbidden to reside in
    the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama,

    for more than three days when the caliph allows them to enter there for
    something they need).

    O11.7

    A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan
    Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances
    , or enter any
    other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches
    without their permission).

  7. Diversity, yeah, right.  Because
    there is more than one “religion” in the world, we must not mention the
    fact that one of them is a war cult, hellbent on conquering us, not a
    legitimate religion.
  8. Incitement to hatred? Muhammad
    bragged about being made victorious with terror. Allah declared that he
    would cast terror. Allah declared that he cast terror, resulting in the
    death of the men of a Jewish settlement and the enslavement of their
    widows and orphans. The fatal facts of Islam are truly worthy of hatred
    and contempt but exposing them is not incitement.
  9. Those of us who have become familiar with the damnable doctrines
    & practices of Islam have a responsibility
    to share our knowledge with our fellows and to encourage them to read
    Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis &
    jurisprudence.  There is no responsibility to be silent or soft
    pedal the truth.
  10. Examine the resolution’s
    call to action :

    5. Notes the speech given by
    Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the
    fifteenth session of the Human Rights Council, and draws on his call on
    States to take the following actions
    to foster a domestic
    environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect, by:

    (a)
    Encouraging the creation of collaborative networks to build mutual
    understanding, promoting dialogue and inspiring constructive action

    towards shared policy goals and the pursuit of tangible outcomes, such
    as servicing projects in the fields of education, health, conflict
    prevention, employment, integration and media education;

    (b)
    Creating an appropriate
    mechanism within Governments
    to, inter alia, identify and
    address potential areas of tension between members of different
    religious communities, and assisting with conflict prevention and
    mediation;

    (c)
    Encouraging training of Government officials in effective outreach
    strategies;

    (d)
    Encouraging the efforts of leaders to discuss within their communities
    the causes of discrimination, and evolving strategies to counter these
    causes;

    (e) Speaking out against
    intolerance
    , including advocacy of religious
    hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or
    violence;

    (f) Adopting measures to criminalize
    incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief
    ; {Review
    the definitions implicit in criticisms of Fitna and the Motoons!!!}

    (g)
    Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious
    stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and
    harmonizing
    actions at the local, national, regional and
    international levels through, inter alia, education
    and awareness-building;  {Indoctrination.}

    (h)
    Recognizing that the open, constructive and respectful debate of ideas,
    as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national
    and international levels, can play a positive role in combating
    religious hatred, incitement and violence;

    6. Calls upon all States:

    (a) To
    take effective
    measures
    to ensure that public functionaries in the conduct of
    their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the
    basis of religion or belief;

    (b) To
    foster religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of
    members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to
    contribute openly and on an equal footing to society;

    (c) To
    encourage the representation and meaningful participation of
    individuals, irrespective of their religion, in all sectors of society;

    (d) To
    make a strong
    effort to counter religious profiling,
    which is understood to be
    the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting
    questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative
    procedures;

    7. Encourages States to consider
    providing updates on efforts made in this regard as part of ongoing
    reporting to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
    Human Rights;

    8. Calls upon States to adopt
    measures and policies to promote the full respect for and protection of
    places of worship and religious sites, cemeteries and shrines, and to
    take measures in cases where they are vulnerable to vandalism or
    destruction;

    9. Calls for strengthened
    international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the promotion of
    a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for
    human rights and diversity of religions and beliefs, and decides to
    convene a panel discussion on this issue at its seventeenth session,
    within existing resources.

August 18, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , | Leave a comment

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu at SCICA


Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu at SCICA

His Excellency Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu
Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference
addressed the
9th Session of the Standing Committee for Information & Cultural Affairs in Dakar,
Republic Of Senegal  during the second week of October. ’10.  The interesting parts are
excerpted below, followed by my commentary, linked through
superscripts. You can read the entire speech in context through this link.


The rising intolerance of Islamic culture and traditions1 being
perpetrated by marginal yet backed by powerful and motivated patrons
and ultra right wing extremist political parties2 and their followers in parts
of the western world is a matter of alarm to all Muslims .

Over the past five years, the OIC had to face daunting and formidable
challenges that sought to demean, insult and make mockery of our
beloved and revered Prophet Muhammad3 (PBUH), defile the Holy Quran and distort the principles of tolerance4 and compassion5 embodied in Islam.

The recent incidents of publication of a book containing the insulting
cartoons of the noble Prophet (PBUH) by a Danish newspaper and the call
to burn the Holy Quran by a pastor in Florida were disseminated by mass
media. It fell on the General Secretariat and the Member States us to
sensitize the conscience of the international community through use of
the media of the dangerous implications6
of such actions.

Mr. President, Excellencies,

The OIC had to stand up to a well orchestrated and determined attack to
undermine the overwhelming richness and greatness of Islamic culture
and traditions and demonize Muslims as terrorists and extremists7.

The perpetrators and activists of Islamophobia are doing their best in
using all available mechanisms to corrupt the mindset of the ordinary
people, in particular the youths, in developing a distorted view8 of Islam and Muslims.

This attack on our poses a serious threat to global peace and security9. We are engaged with our Western counterparts to sensitize them of the mischief being caused by
intolerance of Islam and Muslims and to encourage them to learn, understand and appreciate the values of tolerance and embracement of diversity10 that lies at the heart
of Islamic culture.

This culture of intolerance against Muslims and Islam has to be
countered by a more committed political will11 on the part of the OIC Member States and I would appeal to all that we realize that it is high time to rise to the occasion.

Our policy to deal with the issue should not be based on vengeance or
revenge but to effectively prove the senseless absurdity and
foolhardiness of those involved in taking the world towards the brink
of instability and political and social disorder12.

[]

The Observatory has undertaken an active role on countering attacks on
our culture by issuing rejoinders and statements of condemnations. At
the same time we are actively engaged with the political leadership and
reputed international organizations and institutions of the west to
underscore our concerns and to draw them to join us on a common
platform to combat this dangerous phenomenon13.


  1. We can not and will
    not tolerate Islam’s postulate of divine mandate to conquer &
    subjugate the entire world, killing, raping and pillaging in the
    process.

    1. 2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh’s Cause) is
      ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that
      you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing
      which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.
    2. 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.
    3. Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:

      Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

      I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and
      asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, “We
      went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we
      received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and
      celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So
      when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, ‘How can we do
      coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among
      us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to
      do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to
      exist, it will exist.”

    4. Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 627:

      Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

      The Prophet sent a Sariya towards Najd and I was in it, and our share
      from the booty amounted to twelve camels each, and we were given an
      additional camel each. So we returned with thirteen camels each.

  2. “Ultra right wing extremist
    political parties” paints with a broad brush, smearing those who object
    to Islamization of Western Civilization with the taint of Nazism. The
    slur is spewed without naming the parties, specifying their platforms,
    or offering any evidence.
  3. Muhammad has been dead since 638.
    He can not suffer any material harm from insults.  We are
    condemned for pointing out the facts that he married a six year old
    girl and consumated the marriage three years later.  We are
    condemned for pointing out the fact that he was a terrrorist. We found
    those facts redcorded in Islam’s own canon of oral tradition, from his
    companions, not from his enemies. Is it possible that Allah selected
    such a man to be his final prophet?

    1. Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

      Narrated ‘Aisha:

      that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he
      consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she
      remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

    2. 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).

  4. Tolerance? In Islam?? Where???
    Allah will not tolerate any competitors!  [Emphasis added.]

    1. 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.
  5. We can also see how
    compassionate Allah & Moe are.[Emphasis added.]

    1. 24:2. The woman and the man guilty of illegal
      sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in
      their case
      ,
      in a punishment prescribed by Allâh, if you believe in Allâh and the
      Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment.
      (This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime but
      if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death,
      according to Allâh’s Law).
  6. Once again the veiled threat
    is repeated. “dangerous implications”. Muslims, stirred up by rabble
    rousing sermons, riot, destroying property and killing people. Instead
    of blaming the instigators & perpetrators, Muslims and their
    apologists blame Islam’s critics.
  7. Terrorism is an intrinsic
    sacrament of Islam, Established by Allah’s word and Moe’s excellent
    example. [Emphasis added.]

    1. 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).
    2. 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.”
    3. 8:57. If thou comest on them in the war, deal with
      them so as to strike fear
      in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. 1. Allah
      made me victorious by awe
      , (by His frightening my enemies) for a
      distance of one month’s journey. [Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331]
  8. The real ‘distorted view’ is the
    “great religion of peace” malarkey spewed by Presidtnts Clinton, Bush
    & Obama.
  9. The threat to global peace and
    security comes from Islam’s demonic mandate to genocidal conquest.
    Allah demands “great slaughter” and killing and wounding “many of
    them”. [Emphasis added.]

    1. 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.
    2. 47:4. So, when you meet (in fight Jihâd in Allâh’s
      Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and
      wounded many of them
      , then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e.
      take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity
      (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits
      Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by
      Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till
      they embrace Islâm (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the
      Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been
      Allâh’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without
      you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others.
      But those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, He will never let their
      deeds be lost,
  10. Tolerance & diversity! Are Jews
    allowed to enter Saudi Arabia?  How many churches are there in
    that kingdom?
  11. That paragraph is a coded call for
    increased support for the annual resolutions “combatting defamation of
    religions” and the push for a binding protocol to insert the
    resolutions into ICERD.
  12. The implication is
    that, by criticizing Islam, we  bring the world to the brink of
    war. That is another incarnation of the veiled threat.
  13. What is the danger in exposing
    the reality of Islamic doctrine & practice to public view?
    The only real danger comes from Muslims motivated to kill by those
    doctrines.












October 22, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness | , , | Leave a comment

OIC Withdraws Draft Res. Condemning Qur’an Burning


Pakistan suddenly withdrew the OIC’s Draft Resolution  Condemning a Call to ‘Burn a Qur’an Day‘. Beyond the usual boiler plate references, the draft had five main points.

  • Condemnation of
    • ‘Burn a Koran Day’
    • advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
      • hatred
      • discrimination
      • hostility
      • violence
  • Calls
    • upon international community to stand against such events which
      • undermine peaceful coexistence
      • create an environment conducive to violence; reprisal
    • upon all states to condemn & oppose advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
      • hatred
      • discrimination
      • hostility
      • violence
  • Urges the international community to support all international and regional initiatives to promote cross-cultural and interfaith harmony.

In lieu of the draft resolution, the Council President issued a Presidential statement expressing the consensus of the council.

Statement on behalf of the Human Rights Council

SIHUASAK PHUANKETKEOW, President of the Council, said in view of the growing number of instances of religious intolerance such as discrimination, conflating a religion with terrorism, or desecrating or destroying holy books, religious sites or shrines, he had been empowered by the agreement of all Council members to make the following statement on behalf of the Human Rights Council:

“The Council condemns recent instances of religious intolerance, prejudice and related discrimination and violence, which continued to occur in all parts of the world. The international community should stand united against all forms of religious intolerance and should engage in practical steps to end such intolerance. The Council encourages efforts to establish collaborative networks to build mutual understanding and promote dialogue. The Council stresses that these efforts should be taken to protect individuals of all religions and beliefs in a non-discriminatory way, and should apply to promote understanding among them. The Council also recognises that open, constructive and respectful debate, as well as interfaith dialogue, could have a positive effect. The Council reiterates the call by the United Nations Secretary-General on the necessity for the voices of moderation to be heard and mutual respect to prevail.”

That breaks down to:

  • Condemns:
    • instances of
      • religious intolerance
      • prejudice
      • related:
        • discrimination
        • violence
  • Unite against & take practical steps to end :
    • religious intolerance
  • Encourages
    • efforts to
      • establish collaboration to build
        • mutual understanding
        • dialogue
  • Stresses that it should be done to
    • protect individuals of all religions
    • promote understanding
  • Recognizes Secy. General’s call for moderation & mutual respect.

The major differences I spot are the Presidential statement’s lack of direct reference to ‘Burn a Koran Day’ & advocacy of hatred  and the addition of  condemnation of  intolerance.

The draft had plenty of support; the E.U. had condemned the event, so it is probable that the draft would have won a unanimous ballot. Why was it withdrawn at the last moment, without debate and a vote?

Why does the Presidential statement omit mention of the event which inspired the resolution & its substitute?   If they seek to prevent future incidents of Qur’an burning, they should be open about it, and specify the  act which offends them.   Why does the statement omit condemnation of advocacy of religious hatred?

Terry Jones  abandoned his project, but Muslims continued to riot. They burned churches, Bibles and flags.  Could it be that the Human Rigths Council was caught in a dilemma between condemning Muslim rioters or demonstrating their bias?

Did the statement omit advocacy of religious hatred because the Qur’an is full of it?

The Secretary General of the OIC welcomed the  statement and  used the occasion to push the OIC agenda.

Secretary General welcomes the consensual statement by the 15th Session of the Human Rights Council against growing instances of religious intolerance. The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference Prof Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu welcomed the adoption of a statement regarding condemnation of recent instances of religious intolerance, prejudice and related discrimination and violence, which continued to occur in all parts of the world. The consensual statement was read out, on Council’s behalf, by its President towards the end of the 15th Session in Geneva. …more

…The Secretary General emphasized that the statement was particularly timely in view of the growing number of instances of religious intolerance such as discrimination, conflating religion with terrorism, desecrating or destroying holy books and religious sites or shrines. The Secretary General particularly welcomed the call by the Council – being the human rights conscience of the world— upon the international community to stand against all forms of religious intolerance and engage in practical steps to end such intolerance. …

…He urged the international community to build upon the momentum generated by the consensual statement at the Council, in joining hands with the OIC towards evolving a normative approach to deal with growing instances of religious intolerance that continued to pose a clear and present danger to international community’s efforts and desire for global peace, security and stability.

Lets  examine the elements added by Ihsanoglu.

  • conflating religion with terrorism
  • desecrating or destroying holy books
    • religious sites or shrines
  • normative approach
  • clear and present danger to… global peace, security and stability.

“Conflating Islam with terrorism” is standard boiler plate from the combating defamation resolutions.  It appears that I am the only one pointing out the fact that Allah & Moe established the nexus nearly 1400 years ago.  Allah said that he would cast terror, in 3:151 and 8:12. He said that he cast terror and described the results in 33:26 and 59:2. Moe said that he was made victorious by terror in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220. In more modern times, Brig. S.K. Malik exposed the strategic use of terror in “The Qur’anic Concept of War“[A training manual for Pakistan’s army.].

The Quranic strategy comes into play from the preparation stage, and aims at imposing a direct decision upon the enemy.  Other things remaining the same, our preparation for war is the true index of our performance during war. We must aim at creating a wholesome respect for our Cause and our will and determination to attain it, in the minds of the enemies, well before facing them on the field of battle. So spirited, zealous, complete and thorough should be our preparation for war that we should enter upon the ‘war of muscles’ having already won the ‘war of will’. Only a strategy that aims at striking tenor into the hearts of the enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart‘s dream into a reality….

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.
[Emphasis added.]
If the Arabic Qur’an might be holy (which I deny, it is unholy), the translations which were to be burned and those which were torn  and burned were English translations, not considered sacred to Islam.   The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shreds bibles and crucifixes carried into the Kingdom.  Will the Human Rights Council and the OIC condemn their policy?

When the PLO invaded & occupied the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, they defecated on the Altar and performed istijia with pages torn from the Bible.  Did the Human Rights Commission or the OIC condemn their acts of desecration?

“Normative approach” is a code phrase for legislation.  The OIC is behind the HRC’s Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary International Standards, whose mission is to use a protocol to insert the defamation resolutions into ICERD  so as to give them the force of law.  This issue is flying below the radar, very few people know about it, and those who know ain’t telling. Nobody is doing anything effective to stop the travesty of justice.  But I will share what I know with you.

“Clear and present danger to… global peace, security and stability”. Did the Motoons incite Danes to riot, burn Mosques and kill Muslims?  Who rioted, burned embassies and killed people?  Did clear and present danger arise from the Motoons?

Did International Burn a Qur’an Day” incite Americans to riot, burn property & kill people?  What incited riots other than rabid kutbah in the Mosques of Pakistan, Afghanistan & Indonesia and incendiary news coverage?

How can there be religious tolerance when Islam is intolerant and intolerable?  Has no one read the Qur’an?  3:85 says that no religion but Islam will be tolerated. 9:33 says that Islam must be made dominant.  Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir has some instructive titles and topics each of which contains relevant ayat & ahadith.

Discrimination?  Yeah, right. Islamic law says that kuffar can not testify in court.

o24.2

Legal testimony is only acceptable from a witness who:

(a) is free;

(b) is fully legally responsible (mukallaf, def: c8.1) (O: as testimony is not accepted from a child or insane person, even when the child’s testimony regards injuries among children that occurred at play);

(c) is able to speak;

(d) it mentally awake;

(e) is religious (O: meaning upright (o24.4) (A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says,

“Let those of rectitude among you testify” (Koran 65:2),

and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying); [Emphasis added.]
But wait, there’s more!  Under Islamic law, the blood money for killing a kaffir is significantly discounted.

o4.9

(A: For the rulings below, one multiplies the fraction named by the indemnity appropriate to the death or injury’s type of intentionality and other relevant circumstances that determine the amount of a male Muslim’s indemnity (def: o4.2-6 and o4.13). )

The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim. [Emphasis added.]

Don’t hand me a turd and say its sausage, I know the difference. Islam is not tolerable and I will not tolerate it.  Islam is not respectable and I will not respect it.

October 4, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , | 1 Comment

Defamation of Religions: Background Info.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

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

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

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

O11.10

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

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Defamation of Islam resolution contained these expressions.

1.             Expresses deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions;

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Other relevant  documents of interest:

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

   

%d bloggers like this: