Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Adopting Measures to Criminalize Criticism of Islam


Adopting Measures to Criminalize Criticism of Islam

A/C.3/68/L.48
Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping,stigmatization,
discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons,
based on religion or belief continues by calling all states to take
actions based on remarks by OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu
addressed to the HRC before their vote on one of the previous
resolutions. Eight points were outlined in the speech, and included in
the current draft.

(f) Adopting
measures
to criminalize
incitement to imminent violence based
on religion or belief;

adopting measures to criminalize

    The draft resolution echoes Ishanoglu’s demand that
UN member states enact and enforce laws making negative comments about
Islam a criminal offense. When used by the UN, “incitement to imminent
violence” does not refer to the rabble rousing rants that incite riots,
it refers to every exposure of the damnable doctrines and practices of
Islam 

    Ban Ki moon’s condemnation of Fitna  is
exemplary.

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

The Secretary General of the UN  labeled Fitna
“hate speech” and “incitement”.  In reality, the video exposes
Islamic hate and incitement. Hatred and incitement flow from the
Qur’an, hadith, Shari’ah and the tongues of rabble rousing Imams, not
from the video produced by Geert Wilders.

  • 2:191 And
    slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they
    have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than
    slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first)
    fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward
    of those who suppress faith. [Abdullah Yusuf Ali]

  • 3:139-141 So
    do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be
    superior (in victory) if you are indeed (true) believers. If a
    wound hath touched you, be sure a similar wound hath touched the
    others. Such days (of varying fortunes) We give to men and men by
    turns: that God may know those that believe, and that He may take to
    Himself from your ranks Martyr-witnesses (to Truth). And God loveth not
    those that do wrong.  And that Allah may test (or purify) the
    believers (from sins) and destroy the disbelievers. [Hilali &Khan]

  • 4:91 Ye
    will find others who seek to gain your confidence as well as that of
    their own people: So oft as they return to sedition, they shall be
    overthrown in it: But if they leave you not, nor propose terms or peace
    to you nor withhold their hands, then seize them, and slay them,
    wherever ye find them. Over these have we given you undoubted
    power.[Rodwell]
  • 8:39 
    And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism:
    i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will
    all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease
    (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer
    of what they do.[Hilali & Khan]

  • 9:29 
    Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as
    believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which
    God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession
    of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be
    humbled.[Rodwell]

  • 47:4 When
    ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a
    great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters. And
    afterwards let there either be free dismissals or ransomings, till the
    war hath laid down its burdens. Thus do. Were such the pleasure of God,
    he could himself take vengeance upon them: but He would rather prove
    the one of you by the other. And whoso fight for the cause of God,
    their works he will not suffer to miscarry;[Rodwell]

Riyad
us-Salaheen, Book 11, Ch. 234 cites  many ahadith in proving the obligation
of Jihad
.
It does not mention the above cited ayat, but does cite several others.
 Reliance of the Traveler specifically offers 9:29 as
justification for declaring war on Jews and Christians.

The
Reliance of the Traveller. BOOK O: JUSTICE >> Chapter
O-9.0: Jihad

O-9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o-25)
makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has
first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they
will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by
paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o-11.4) -which is the
significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining
in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they
become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance
with the word of Allah Most High,

“Fight
those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not
what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the
religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until
they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9.29)

Note
the use of fitna in 8:39 as casus belli. It is also mentioned in 5:33 Muslims love to cite 5:32,
but never quote its successor to Kuffar. Why is that?

5:32 
Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone
killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread
mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if
anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all
mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear
proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them
continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and
exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins)
in the land!
5:33 The
recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do
mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or
their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be
exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great
torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

Ibn
Kathir’s tafsir of  5:33
 has a blood curdling
implication. Note the emphasized phrases.

`Wage
war
‘ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief,
blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land
refers to various types of evil.

Mere
disbelief in Allah is sufficient to subject you to the hudud listed in
the ayeh above cited! Now you rightly understand that Geert Wilders is
not exaggerating in his video presentation.

   
Without exception, the hate speech and incitement displayed in Fitna flow from Islam’s canonical
texts and the mouths of rabble rousing Imams, not from Geert
Wilders.  The Secretary General does not condemn Allah, his Book,
his Messenger or his rabble rousing preachers, he condemns the video
which exposes them.

    Fitna
is
neither hate speech nor incitement, it is objective and factual; an
exposure of the damnable doctrines of Islam and accursed practices
which flow from belief in  them.  The draft resolution is an
attempt to erect a legal shield to protect the world’s worst evil from
exposure. 

November 15, 2013 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , | 2 Comments

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

Ad Hoc Cmte: War on Free Speech


The UN’s war on freedom of expression is waged in
two parallel plains: resolutions and international covenants.  The
former have no enforcement mechanism; the latter have the force of
international law binding on signatories.   On the covenant plain,
the weapon is the Ad Hoc Cmte. and the mechanism is ICERD.  The
OIC
and its allies seek to insert Islam’s blasphemy laws into ICERD through
a binding protocol which would establish new norms criminalizing
criticism of Islam.

This plain of conflict is under reported and little
known.  the action takes place below the radar. Unfortunately, it
is the most dangerous to our cherished liberty because its outcome will
have the force of international law.

The committee holds two ten day sessions each
year.  Those sessions
have been marked by conflict which has resulted in narrowing the scope
of its deliberations, excluding Islamophobia.  This resolution is
an
expression of frustration and demand for results.

Once ICERD is amended to criminalize criticism of
Islam, the
creators of Fitna, Innocence of Muslims and the Motoons could be
persecuted in national and international courts and sentenced to prison
or death.

The HRC and GA resolutions give immoral support to
national
blasphemy laws used to persecute indigenous Christians in Indonesia
& Pakistan, but they have no teeth. The mission of the Ad Hoc
Committee has venomous fangs.

http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/10556ad_hoc_committee.pdf

2lStSession of the Human Rights Council

Agenda Item 9

Elaboration of international complementary standards to the
lnternational

Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

 

Recalling its decision 31103 of 8
December 2006, in which it decided to establish, in accordance

with the provisions of paragraph 199 of the Durban Declaration and
Programme of Action, the

Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of
Complementary

Standards, with a mandate to elaborate, as a matter of priority and
necessity, complementary

standards in the form of either a convention or additional protocol(s)
to the lnternational

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
filling the existing gaps in

the Convention and also providing
new normative standards aimed at combating all forms of


contemporary racism, including
incitement to racial and religious hatred
,(NHRCiResll0;30)

normative standards

The best way to translate this code phrase is to
provide examples from Shari’ah: Reliance of the Traveller, O8.7, which
lists 20 acts entailing apostasy, which carries the death
penalty.  The provisions of O8.7 are applied to dhimmis through O11.10

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

What is impermissible?

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

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

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

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

-16- to
revile the religion of Islam
;

incitement to racial and religious hatred

Translation of this code phrase is best accomplished
by reference to a concrete example: Fitna,
the short video by Geert Wilders which juxtaposed verses from the
Qur’an & hadith with the rabid rants of Imams and their violent
consequences.     Fitna exposed incitement, it did not
incite.  Observe what the Secretary General of the UN said about
it.

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

Ban’s spokesman used similar terms to describe Innocence
of Muslims
:

He
condemns the
hateful film that appears to have been deliberately designed to sow
bigotry and bloodshed.

The clear intention is to criminalize all criticism
of Islam.  The condemned videos do not incite violence, they
expose incitement.  Linking Islam to incitement to violence
constitutes reviling Islam, which carries the death penalty.  By
that standard, I could be persecuted, fined and imprisoned for exposing
the fact that the practice of Islam entails violence and terrorism,
like this:

Islam is inseverable, 2:85 condemns selectivity; Muslims must accept the
entire package, including genocidal, terrorist conquest.
Religious violence & terrorism are incited in the Qur’an (3:151, 8:12, 39, 57, 59, 60, 65, 67, 9:5, 29, 111, 120, 123, 33:26, 47:4, 49:1559:2, 59:13 & 61:10), in hadith (Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, 4.52.177, 1.7.331 & 4.52.220, Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2635, 23.3455 & 14.2497), and Shari’ah (Reliance of the Traveller:
O9.0-9 & Hedaya Vol. 2, pg 140-230).

Under the standards demanded by the OIC, Arab
League, Non-Aligned Group and European Union, this blog post would be
illegal because of the proceeding paragraph.

Underlining the imperative need for the
Ad Hoc Committee to achieve its mandate (NHRCI

13118 updated)

I. Decides that the Ad Hoc
Committee shall convene its fifth session from 13 to 24 May


2013; (AIHRCI 13118
updated),

l.(bis) Takes note of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Human
Rights

Council on the Elaboration of lnternational Complementary Standards to
the

lnternational Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination,

2. Invites the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Ad Hoc Committee to

hold informal consultations, within existing resources, with
regional and

political coordinators during the inter-sessional period between the
fourth

and fifth sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee, with the aim to

prepare the fifth session and collect concrete proposals for

discussion on the topics of xenophobia, establishment, designation or

maintaining of national mechanisms with competencies to protect against
and

prevent all forms &-and manifestations of racism, racial
discrimination,

xenophobia and related intolerance; and procedural gaps with regard to

the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination, in accordance with its mandate; NEW (AIHRCl21159)

The Cmte.’s fourth session produced a 47 page report :

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session21/A-HRC-21-59_en.pdf

September 20, 2012 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Human Rights First: Wrong about Abigail Esman’s Assessment of HRC 16/18


http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/01/10/abigail-esman-gets-it-wrong-on-free-speech/

Having presented a link to the article, I will post only a few paragraphs that bear directly on the issue. Links in the quotes are original, the highlighting is mine.

In the first paragraph, the author suggests that “incitement to imminent violence” – an act that the resolution recommends be criminalized – could mean anything. This is a harmful misconception that serves as a crux of the opposition to this resolution.

The author doesn’t directly dispute a quote from a recent Human Rights First blog on Myth vs. Reality on US Engagement with Islamic States that “the only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to ‘imminent violence,’ which is in accordance with US law.” Yet at the same time the author states that opponents of the resolution “rightly find [this measure] distressing.” How could one be distressed by a provision that recommends the criminalization of only those instances of incitement that are considered criminal under the U.S. Constitution, the highest standard of free speech in the world?

As the UN documents are fond of saying, read “inter alia”. HRC RES 16/18 is based on UN standards, not Constitutional standards.  “Incitement to imminent violence” means what they want it to mean, not what we want it to mean. Islam practices Orwellian double speak.

Through her examples, the author seems to indicate that speech could be considered “incitement to imminent violence” simply because an individual or group of individuals react violently to it. This is an incorrect understanding of the legal concept of “incitement” as it is used in U.S. law, the standard on which this part of the resolution was based.

Where in the resolution does it explicitly define the meaning of incitement?  Nowhere!!  The definition is found elsewhere, in the expressions of the Secretary General of the OIC and the Secretary General of the United Nations.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G11/127/27/PDF/G1112727.pdf?OpenElement

2. Expresses its concern that incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination
and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of
religion or belief, continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any
advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, as set forth
in the present resolution, consistent with their obligations under international human rights
law, to address and combat such incidents;

3. Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or
electronic media or any other means;

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:
(f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on
religion or belief; [http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/8864sggenevaoic.pdf#page=3]

In the first page of Ishanoglu’s address to the HRC, we discover something important: his definition of incitement to violence includes announcing intent to burn the Koran.

     The new session of Council is also coincident 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 Burn a Koran Day.

On the next page, Ishanoglu lists campaigns that incite hatred,  including Burn a Koran Day, and informs us that they threaten global peace & security.  In the short form:  they incite violence.

In this regard all xenophobic campaigns of fear mongering and discriminatory
measures – both in policy md practice – which restrict, prohibit or discriminate against of any
religion such as ban on the construction 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.

Lets clarify the issue of “clear and present danger to peace”; in essence: violence, by breaking down the conjunctive clause.

  • Incitement to violence:
    • fear mongering
    • discriminatory
    • ban minarets
    • incite hatred
    • Burn a koran Day
  • other discriminatory measures

Now that it is clear that discrimination is equated with incitement, lets zero in on that last clause: other discriminatory measures: what, exactly, does this category include?  To find out, we turn to the most recent annual Islamophobia Report.

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=6

Other instances of Islamophobia in the US recorded in the report include the agenda of the Tea
Party Movement, which openly advocated hatred against Muslims, the proposed “ban on Sharia”
which succeeded within the State of Oklahoma, and the congressional hearings on the
“radicalization of the American Muslim Community” initiated by Rep. Peter King, Chairman of
the US House Committee on Homeland Security. The hearings launched a debate built on
prejudiced and biased premises that Muslims were potential terrorists who, in his opinion,
ostensibly refused to cooperate with the Nation’s “war on terror”. Such a debate, regardless of
the outcome, would contribute to a climate of fear and distrust towards the Muslim community.

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=10

The United States of America – a country long admired for its embracement of diversity –
recorded the highest intensity of hostility and prejudice towards Muslims during the period
under review. The infamous “Burn A Quran Day” by a hitherto non-entity Florida Pastor Terry
Jones and his subsequent actions at hate mongering, the Congressional hearings by the
Chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security on the
“radicalization of American Muslims” in Washington DC on March 11, 2011 and his statement
that “We (the US) are under siege by Muslim terrorists”1 along with other anti Muslim events,
were ominous signs of Islamophobia taking roots in the USA. The fact that such incidents cast a
shadow on the US image of tolerance frustrating the optimism generated, throughout the Muslim
world, by President Obama’s speech in Cairo in June 2009, may not be discounted.
  • Tea Party Platform
  • Qur’an burning
  • Radicalization Hearings

Lets gild the lilly by bringing in two more important sources which confirm the obvious, from the initial meeting of the Istanbul Process .

OIC Journal June-August ’11
http://issuu.com/oic-journal/docs/journal_issue18_english?mode=window&pageNumber=7
Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, US Representative to the Human Rights Council,

In response to OIC Journal query on defining what would
constitute incitement to hate, she clarified that in the US there
is a single case where freedom of expression can be restricted
or prohibited by the State, and that is when “incitement to
eminent violence”.

In this context, she pointed out that the President, the
Secretary of State and several public officials went out on a
limb to publically condemn ‘Burn the Quran Day’ to show
that such abominable acts are not accepted. “When you have
the President, the Secretary of State and public figures jointly
condemning that, it will be more effective than throwing
that pastor in jail. I believe the same is true for the hateful
cartoons (of the Prophet). We should all be joining together
in conveying our disgust with such intolerance.”

Ambassador Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative
of Pakistan on behalf of the OIC at the HRC, told the OIC
Journal that both sides – the OIC countries and the western
countries – made important concessions to each other to
reach a compromise on the resolution. What is important for
the OIC point of view is that it would not compromise on
three things: anything against the Quran, anything against the
Prophet (PBUH), and anything against Muslim community
in terms of discrimination.

According to our HRC Ambassador, Burn the Qur’an Day was abominable intolerance.   According to Pakistan’s Ambassador, the OIC will not compromise on anything against the Qur’an or Moe.

Now it is time to go right to the top, to obtain the working definition of incitement to violence from  the Secretary General of the United Nations.

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

According to Ban, the short documentary by Geert Wilders, combining verses from the Qur’an & hadith with sermons from Friday prayers and images of the ensuing violence, is incitement to violence.  In reality, Fitna exposes incitement, it does not constitute incitement.  Having examined the operative definition of incitement, lets take a look at the Islamic law behind the whole operation.

What Moe preached is law, what he practiced is exemplary, together, his preaching and practice form the basis of Islamic law.  Moe had critics murdered.  Because of that exemplary conduct, the penalty for criticizing Islam is death.

  • 08.1 When a person who has reached puberty
    and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he
    deserves to be killed.
  • 08.7 (0: Among the things that entail apostasy
    from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

    • (4) to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah
      bless him and give him peace);
    • (5) to deny the existence of Allah, His beginningless
      eternality, His endless eternaIity, or to
      deny any of His attributes which the consensus of
      Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: vI);
    • (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)
      belong
    • (15) to hold that any of Allah’s messengers
      or prophets are liars, or to deny their bcing sent;
      (n: ‘Ala’ ai-Din ‘Abidin adds the following:
    • (16) to revile the religion of Islam;
      (17) to believe that things in themselves or
      by their own nature have any causal influence
      independent of the will of Allah;
    • (18) to deny the existence of angels or jinn
      (def: w22), or the heavens;
    • (19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the
      Sacred Law;
      (20) or to deny that Allah intended the
      Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him
      peace) to be the religion followed by the entire
      world (dis: w4.3–4) (al-Hadiyya al-‘Ala’iyya (y4),
      423-24).)
  • 011. IO The agreement is also violated (A: with
    respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated
    that any of the following things break it, and
    one of the suhjects does so anyway. though if the
    state has not stipulated that these break the agreement,
    then they do not; namely, if one of the subject
    people:

    • (5) or mentions something impermissible
      about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and
      give him peace), or Islam.
  • 011.11 When a subject’s agreement with the state
    has been viOlated, the caliph chooses between the
    four alternatives mentioned above in connection
    with prisoners of war (09.14).
  • O9.14  When an adult male is taken captive, the
    caliph (def: 025) considers the interests (0: of
    Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the
    prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying
    anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for
    money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
    If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (0: before
    the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives)
    then he may not be killed, and one of the other
    three alternatives is chosen.

The OIC seeks to prevent & punish every negative utterance about Islam. Their current tactic is to conflate criticism with incitement, proscribing the latter.
The fourth Islamophobia Report hints at the next step.

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=16

The restraint was short lived and on 20 March 2011 the controversial Florida Pastor Terry
Jones oversaw24 the burning of a copy of the Koran, carried out by Pastor Wayne Sapp, in his
small church. The incident was presented as a trial of the book in which the Koran was found
“guilty” and “executed”. The event was open to the public. Fewer than 30 people attended but
widespread media coverage attracted by the event somewhat served the nefarious designs and
the extremist philosophy behind the outrageous act.

After the unfortunate incident, the OIC Secretary General issued a statement expressing his deep
disappointment, and warned against unforeseen and volatile consequences of such outrageous
and irresponsible acts that could hurt the deep seated religious sentiments of over 1.5 billion
Muslims around the world. He characterized the unfortunate incident as “the worst example of
extremism” that the international community had been consistent in condemning.

http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2011/en/islamphobia_rep_May_2010_to_April_2011_en.pdf#page=36

Approaches like applying the ‘test of consequences’ were useful and would have to be
explored/refined further in an objective fashion towards evolving a consensus with
regard to effectively addressing the matter; and

 As regards the issue of freedom of opinion and expression, the OIC could with the views
of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and expression with regard to making “very
few exceptions” but the contours of such exceptions would have to be identified. OIC
believed that unfortunate and outrageous episodes like the caricatures and the burning of
holy Quran merited the grant of such exceptions;

For those too stupid or indolent to connect the dots: if the resolution had been implemented a year ago, Pastors Jones & Sapp would be  persecuted criminally & sued civil court for the “consequences” of their trial and execution of the Qur’an.  Holding them responsible for the acts of a Muslim rabble roused by kutbah at Jumah Salat is not just, nor is it rational.  Jones & Sapp did not incite anyone to violence. Asian Imams did.

It becomes obvious that the plan is to compel self-censorship through legal intimidation.  It is equally obvious that Human Rights first is so heavily invested in the Istanbul Process that they are blinded to objective factual reality.

January 11, 2012 Posted by | free speech, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | 2 Comments

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

Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping…


The 3rd Committee action predicts similar action in the General Assembly next month.  This is a continuation of one branch of the OIC’s ten year plan. The objective is to pass and enforce international and national legislation to criminalize, prohibit and punish all criticism and questioning of Islam.

Because the tyrants and clerics know that Islam is false & malignant, they can not tolerate any expression which might raise doubts among the Ummah.  Read this well documented essay to discover how Moe dealt with one of his critics.

To examine the Shari’ah relevant to blasphemy, follow these links:


current resolutions

Two relevant resolutions were recently approved by acclamation in the 3rd Cmte.  and are expected to be approved by the General Assembly in December ’11.  I present titles, links, and a few pertinent paragraphs for your examination..

  • A/C.3/66/L.48/Rev.1
  • Promotion and protection of human rights: human
    rights questions, including alternative approaches
    for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights
    and fundamental freedoms
    • Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based
      on religion or belief
6. Strongly condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of
print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means;
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;
(b) Incidents of religious hatred, discrimination, intolerance and violence,
which may be manifested by the derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and
stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief;

(j) 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;

advocacy of religious hatred

      What does that mean?  The expression is so broad and ambiguous as to be stretched over anything we say or write. See the Ban Ki-moon quote about Fitna. 

no religion should be equated with terrorism

That boilerplate expression from previous resolutions should trigger alarm bells.  Who perpetrated the accursed abomination?  Were they Buddhists?  Were they Jews?  Were they Baptists?  No, they were Muslims!

Why  is Islam associated with Terrorism?  Maillot, New York, Madrid, London, Beslan & Mumbai: Get a  clue!!!  “Allahu akbar!” They shouted the takbir when they mounted their attacks.  Why?

Mohammad Atta, in his final message to the Magnificent 19, directed them to shout the Takbir while slaughtering because it terrifies disbelievers.
Psychological warfare

When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.

Where did Atta get that brilliant idea? From his role model, of course.

Sahih Bukhari 4.52.195
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet set out for Khaibar and reached it at night. He used not to attack if he reached the people at night, till the day broke. So, when the day dawned, the Jews came out with their bags and spades. When they saw the Prophet; they said, “Muhammad and his army!” The Prophet said, Allahu–Akbar! (Allah is Greater) and Khaibar is ruined, for whenever we approach a nation (i.e. enemy to fight) then it will be a miserable morning for those who have been warned.”

 

I will cast terror.

Allah cast terror.

Jews more afraid of Moe than of Allah

to strike terror

  • 8:57 (Dr. Munir Munshey)
  • 8:60 (Yusuf Ali)

victory through terror

  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
    Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
    The Prophet said, “I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
    1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.
    2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
    3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
    4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
    5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
    Narrated Abu Huraira:

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

  • A/C.3/66/L.47/Rev.1
    • Promotion and protection of human rights: human
      rights questions, including alternative approaches for
      improving the effective enjoyment of human rights
      and fundamental freedoms
      • Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping,
        stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and
        violence against persons, based on religion or belief
Underlining the importance of education in the promotion of tolerance, which
involves the acceptance by the public of and its respect for religious and cultural
diversity, including with regard to religious expression, and underlining also the fact
that education, in particular at school, should contribute in a meaningful way to
promoting tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or
belief,

 

1. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of derogatory
stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion
or belief, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations
and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious
groups, in particular when condoned by Governments

2. Expresses concern that the number of incidents of religious intolerance,
discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of
individuals on the basis of religion or belief, continues to rise around the world,
condemns, in this context, any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to
take effective measures, as set forth in the present resolution and consistent with
their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such
incidents;
3. 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;

(f) Adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence
based on religion or belief;
(g) Understanding the need to combat denigration and the 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-raising;

(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;

education

      Indoctrination! They want our schools to inculcate tolerance for that which is absolutely intolerable: a war cult which seeks to conquer or kill us.

incidents of intolerance

Including Fitna, the Motoons and Rev. Jones trying & burning the Qur’an.  Refer to the OIC’s Islamophobia Observatory for examples.

advocacy of hatred

Recall the remarks of Ban Ki-moon on 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 to imminent violence

          Recall the remarks of Ban Ki-moon on Fitna, quoted above.  Ban equates exposure of incitement to incitement.

religious profiling

Why waste time patting down Granny when all recent terror plots have been hatched or perpetrated by young Muslim males?  When you hear hoof beats, do you look for horses or unicorns?

They want to make it illegal to utter and publish any negative information about Islam.  They want to block our security personnel from scrutinizing those most likely to perpetrate terror attacks.  In fine, they are trying to disarm and disable us so that we can not mount an effective defense against their jihad.

Take Action!

Go to http://www.congress.org/ , create a free account, enter your Zip Code and tell your Representative & Senators to require the State Department to demand a vote on these resolutions and vote NO! in the General Assembly.  And share this information with everyone who will read or listen.

These resolutions have no legal force, but they have the effect of legitimizing national blasphemy laws which are used to persecute indigenous religious minorities in lands conquered and dominated by Muslims.   These resolutions are a stepping stone to their tactical objective: amending ICERD to make all questioning and criticism an offense punishable by law.

November 27, 2011 Posted by | 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

Geert Wilders Trial: Refresher Course


The purpose of this blog post is to remind readers of the background information essential to comprehending the resumption of the trial of Geert Wilders.

This quote is from an English translation of the summons which lists the accusations against  Geert Wilders.  The summons is 24 pages long, detailing many statements.

The aforementioned summoned person is charged with the fact that
1.
he, on one or more dates in or about the period from 8 August 2007 up to and including 27 March 2008, in The Hague and/or Amsterdam and/or (elsewhere in) the Netherlands, on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion, by (each time) intentionally in
– De Volkskrant and/or
– on the internet on the website http://www.liveleak.com (in the film Fitna)
placing (having placed) and/or showing (having showed) and/or having heard one or more texts and/or images and/or footage and/or audio fragments with the following content:
(De Volkskrant of 8 August 2007, ‘Enough is enough: prohibit the Quran’)
„A moderate Islam does not exist. It does not exist because there is no distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam. There is Islam and that is it. And Islam means the Quran and nothing but the Quran. And the Quran is the Mein Kampf of a religion that intends to eliminate others and that refers to those others – non-Muslims – as unfaithful dogs, inferior beings. Read the Quran, this Mein Kampf, again. In whatever version, you will see that all the evil that the sons of Allah commit to us and themselves originates from this book (Oriana Fallaci, The Force of Reason, post-script, page 305, February 2006).‟…

2.
he, on one or more dates in or about the period from 7 October 2006 up to and including 27 March 2008, in The Hague and/or Amsterdam and/or (elsewhere in) the Netherlands, on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, incited to hatred of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion, by (each time) in
– De Volkskrant and/or
– De Pers and/or
– Dagblad De Limburger-Limburgs Dagblad and/or
on the internet
– on the website http://www.geenstijl.nl and/or http://www.pvv.nl and/or
– on the website of Radio Nederland Wereldomroep and/or the Wereldomroep and/or
– on the website http://www.liveleak.com (in the film Fitna)

[Emphasis added.]

Notice the prominent mention of Fitna, the publication of which is the basic issue, condemned by many government leaders, the OIC, and the Secretary General of the United Nations.  The summons goes on to describe the images in the video and list statements made therein.

The first charge is intentionally offending Muslims.  The statute, cited on the last page of the summons,  makes the issue cut and dried.

Article 137c Dutch Penal Code

  • o 1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in an way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
  • o 2. If the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.

 Article 137d Dutch Penal Code

  • o 1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or in an image, incites hatred against or discrimination of people or violent behaviour against person or property of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their gender or hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
  • o 2. If the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.

Truth is not a defense in the statute.  How shall the defendant establish proof of his intent?  The law, as written, criminalizes truthful speech on the grounds of perceived insult & inciting hatred, discrimination or violence.

Geert Wilders is an elected member of the Dutch Parliament, in that position, he is entitled to discuss public policy.  Islamization is a legitimate subject for public discourse; it is taking place in Europe.

Fitna can be viewed in its entirety by clicking this link. It is divided into two parts on Youtube.  I will embed the two parts here so that you can view them.
You will see a few verses from the Qur’an  and an English translation .  You will hear an Arabic recitation and see graphic depictions of the practical application of the verses.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37w-aXGk8M0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwwsnAr3rY8

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.”

Who expressed hatred in that video?  Who incited violence in that video?    The Qur’an, not Geert Wilders  is the source of hate and incitement.  Wilders exposed hate & incitement, he did not perform it.

My earlier blog posts relevant to the trial are linked in the list below.

October 5, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Coming Soon to a Courtroom near You


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICERD. [Emphasis added.]

Article 4

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

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

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

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

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

ICCPR

Article 20
  1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
  2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
3:110. You [true believers in Islâmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad  and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma’rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden), and you believe in Allâh. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fâsiqûn (disobedient to Allâh – and rebellious against Allâh’s Command).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

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

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

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

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

9:30. And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

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

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article 3

The following acts shall be punishable:

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

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


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


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

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

Interviewer Tries to Trap Geert Wilders


I found this video at Bleed the Soul, through a Google Alert.

I have attempted to transcribe the interview.  Unfortunately, there is a lot of fast talking, and parts of  the audio track are unintelligible. I  can’t speak a word of Dutch, so I should not knock Geert’s fluency in English, but his syntax could be improved.

The point I really want to make is that the Islamic ideology is facing a real threat to our freedom–to our western  society so the values  of our society are based on Judaism and Christianity; on humanism.  And I’m also here   in the United States to learn, I mean, the United states is the country when it comes to freedom  of speech and I’m here to learn in order to propose a European kind of First Amendment because unfortunately, free speech is on trial In Europe today.

It ain’t the ideology that poses a threat, it is the believers’ attempt to  actualize it that threatens us.  The European legal system is so different from ours that I’ doubt that  our concept of free speech can be adapted to fit the European system.  The change would be so revolutionary that I doubt that it can be done in the short term.

You know, I watched the film on line and I would call it fearmongering at best, at worst, it really reminded me of  a kind of propaganda thats been  used to trigger violence and discrimination from Nazi Germany to Rwanda.

If vampirism was real instead of mythological, and vampires were sucking  blood, killing people and turning them into vampires, would exposing them be ‘fearmongering’?  I would call it sounding a warning.  Fitna demonstrates the connection between the words of the Qur’an and the action of Muslim mobs stirred up by Muslim clerics. Arabia, North Africa, nearly half of Asia and a considerable part of Southern and Eastern Europe were conquered by Islam in the past. Millions of people were slaughtered in the process.  Europe is in danger of demographic conquest as well as terrorist attacks.  The interviewer seems to feel that we should keep silent in the face of those imminent dangers.

Well, unfortunately, this is not true, I mean, I didn’t use any actors in the movie, the movie was made by radical Muslims themselves.  I used certain Surahs and verses from those Surahs and I used real images from 9/11 and the radical Imam who said that  he would conquer the whole world and the death of one of my fellow countrymen in Amsterdam. And so, unfortunately I could not have made such  a movie about Christianity; I have to say fortunately I could not make such a movie about Christianity  or Judaism. Of course it would be ridiculous to say that all Muslims are terrorists, this is nonsense, but unfortunately, most of the terrorists in the world today are Muslims. And the ideology of Islam is really, and I truly believe that, is a threat  to our free society.

Islam is terrorism; therefore Muslims are terrorists.  In 3:151, Allah said:  “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).  In 8:12 Allah again declared that he would cast terror.  In 33:26 & 59:2, Allah provides examples of his casting  terror and describes the results.
Islam’s founder bragged about being made victorious by terror, as recorded in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220. Terrorism is a tactic of Jihad.  In 8:60, Allah commands Muslims to build the largest possible arsenal, for the purpose of terrifying their perceived enemies.  That is related to 8:39 & 9:29 in which Allah comands Muslims to wage war against pagans, Jews & Christians until only Allah is worshiped and the Jews & Christians are subjugated and extorted.

Islam divides the world into two houses: the house of Islam and the house of war.  Dar al-harb is wherever  Allah’s writ don’t run.  Dar al-harb must be conquered and subsumed into Dar al-Islam. .  Islam is perpetual war; terrorism.  Without Muslims it would be totally impotent, just books on a shelf.

But you use the extremes of that and in the film…the extremes of people that have, you know,  who have lost all reason and I have to ask you: Is it freedom of speech you are talking about or freedom of hate speech?

There are no extremes; there is only Islam as revealed and exemplified by Moe.  Those people depicted in the Islamic promotional  videos included in Fitna never had any reason to lose, they were brainwashed with Islam from birth.   Jihad, terrorism & genocide are not exceptional, they are standard issue Islam.

The Qur’an is a combination of hate speech and incitement to violence.

No. I am not somebody who is in favor of hate speech at all.  I want to open the eyes of the political elite in Europe, and maybe even the United States that Islam is not just another religion it can not be compared with Christianity or Judaism.  I believe that Islam is more like a totalitarian ideology that rules all aspects of life; it wants to rule all aspects of society, it doesn’t  want to integrate in society but it wants to submit.  So I think it is more to be compared with other totalitarian ideologies like Communism or Fascism. And, of course, I make a distinction  between the people and the ideology.  I have nothing against Muslims, I hate nobody and the majority of Muslims in our society are law abiding people like you and me.  But I have a lot of fear of the influx of the Islamic totalitarian ideology that at the end of the day, I’m sure, unfortunately, will  cost us our freedom if we don’t stand up and fight to preserve our own identity.

Maududi described Islam as a revolution.  Moe called it a deen: way of life.  What  is it really?  Perpetual war.  Islam is perpetual war, propagated for the ostensible purpose of making the entire world submit to Islam; for the real purpose of accruing spoils, tribute, power and sex slaves for Moe and his successors. You who doubt this fatal fact need to read the Qur’an & hadith to comprehend  objective factual reality.  The parts you need to read have been concentrated in “Islam’s mercenary Mission“; read it and follow the links to the source documents.

Muslims are here to dominate; to take over and subjugate us, not to assimilate. They  intend to force us to submit. Rational and informed  lovers of liberty have something against Muslims: Islam. Islam imposes on Muslims a demonic mandate to conquer the entire world and confers upon them a license to kill, rape, enslave and pillage, open season with no bag limit.  Participation in Jihad is the only guarantee a Muslim has of not being condemned to eternal damnation.  Being killed in Jihad is the only guarantee a Muslim has of obtaining one of the best seats in Paradise.

You know, moderate Muslims in the United States and beyond — they don’t like the extremists either; they don’t like the calls to kill non-believers as they are called in the terminology that you quoted.  Have you ever thought about joining hands with  them to fight the  extremism rather than attacking their faith?

Extremists are a figment of your imagination.  There are believers and there are hypocrites, whose Islam goes no deeper than their throats. Allah tests them by Jihad to determine which is which.   What you call extremism is the doctrine of their faith; its fundamental core tenets.  No Muslim can abjure the ayat which command perpetual warfare, terrorism & genocide.  To do so is tantamount to apostasy, the penalty for which is immediate death.   If you don’t believe this or can’t comprehend it, then you need to sample Islamic law.  Don’t worry,  the vital parts have been extracted from the 1200 page book and documented for your reading displeasure.

So, like I said before, sir, I am not against–I don’t have a problem with Muslims as persons  and of course I acknowledge the fact that there are persons who call themselves …..

That is pandering to political correctness; it ain’t a good sign.

But wouldn’t you admit that the film Fitna is an assault; an attack  on the Qur’an and on and the verses in it?

The question implies that there is something wrong about challenging  and exposing evil.

Of course, but the Qur’an, according to me, is a fascist book, so my aim is to attack and to expose the real nature of the   Quran.
Have you read some of the passages in the Old Testament?

That is the standard diversionary attack: argumentum tu-quoque:  “You’re one, too!”.   It belongs in the elementary schoolyard, not in a serious interview about a live and death issue of existential conflict.

Of course I did, and, as you know, the Old testament and I know–everybody knows that passages of the book [unintelligible] and you know, that after the more harsh parts of the Old testament there was a New Testament  and the New Testament was more moderate and Christianity went to a place of enlightenment and separation of church and state. And, unfortunately, there is no new  Qur’an.  I would be very much in favor if the Muslims would get rid  all the violent passages from the Qur’an–get rid of it, tear it out of the Qur’an and build it a new, more moderate Islam …

Muslims can’t get rid of the violent passages, because they are Allah’s perfected, immutable word, any attempt to alter his word earns the editor a place in Hell fire.

Should all of the violence in the Old Testament and all the calls to kill people and slaughter them–should that also be eliminated; should Christians today and Jews go back and purge their books?

The diversionary attack is repeated, in different terms.  The  Hebrew genocide mandate expired with the conquest of Canaan.  It has no modern validity.  Christ did not issue any genocide edicts. There is no New Testament equivalent of Al-Anfal 67.

No, like I said…
No? Just the Muslims…

The interviewer persists in postulating a false equivalence between Christianity and Islam.

Like I said, The Old Testament was followed by a more moderate New Testament whereas we have not seen because Muslims believe  its the word of  Allah and it can not be criticized there has not been and there probably will not be a new Qur’an and at the same time we have in the world no problem with Christians  or Jews with few exceptions, of course out there we have a problem, and all over the world, with the ideology of hatred  which is called Islam.

Islam is an ideology of supremacism, genocidal conquest and domination.

The movie Fitna is still available on line. The Qur’an quotes used in Fitna and Wilders’ address to the Dutch Parliament are documented in this blog post.

May 1, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness, Uncategorized | , , , , , , | 5 Comments

%d bloggers like this: