Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Innocence of Islam Update: Heinous Defamation of Islam Petition


 

A growing number of Muslims has been searching the web for a petition
demanding the banning of the video: Innocence of Muslims. Their
searches have taken them to my blog posts about the video.  Now a
petition has been uttered and published and I am taking it apart bit by
bit because I take every instance of bitching about Islamophobia as an
opportunity to redouble exposure of Islam’s rotten core.

I am aware of the possibility that this blog post
will increase the petition’s publicity and signatures. So be it.
I have no doubt that it will receive far more signatures than the counter petition for preservation of free speech
because Muslims are organized and highly motivated.

Heinous Defamation of Islam and slandering of Prophet Muhammad must be
stopped from being labeled as Freedom of Expression and Action

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/heinous-defamation-of-islam-and-slandering-of-prophet-m.html

Preamble

In the light of the movie “Innocence of
Muslims” the International Defamation Laws regarding religions must be
revised.

An act of freedom is committed for liberation not for causing violence.
Defamation of Religions must be barred. FREEdom of expression and
action does not mean letting all hell lose if that be the case then
there should never have been any laws made or enforced.

Any statement or act that causes social, political and mental unrest to
any section, sector, social group of society must have a law against it

Petition

The
movie “Innocence of Muslims” must be internationally banned and
International Defamation Laws must be revised to ensure that no more
intolerable religious slandering and defamation is carried out by any
individual or group of individuals against any Religious groups.

Innocence of Muslims

Islamic doctrine holds that only Muslims are
innocent: all others are rebelling against Allah and his Messenger.
Surah Al-Ma’idah 5:33
lists the punishments  applicable to rebels against Allah and his
Messenger including crucifixion, amputations and expulsion.  It is
only when we turn to Tafsir Ibn Kathir
that we learn the meaning of “wage war” in this context.  A list
of alternative elements is included, and it “includes disbelief.”

Anyone who does not believe in Allah and
embrace Islam is guilty of “waging war against Allah and his
Messenger”;
subject to execution.  The Hanifi school’s code of Shari’ah rules
that infidelity is to be punished by “destruction” .  In the case
of Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians, payment of Jizya may be substituted for destruction.  It
also states that Infidels may be attacked without provocation.
For the details on Jizya, click the link above and scroll up to page
213.

Are Muslims innocent?

Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and his Messenger.  They are
commanded to emulate Muhammad.  Allah’s imperatives which must be obeyed include: offensive conquest
against Pagans and People of the Book, terrorism [See also 8:57
& 8:60]
and genocide. Moe’s exemplary conduct to be emulated
includes: offensive conquest, genocide. rape of captured women and extortion.

To the extent that Muslims obey Allah and emulate Moe as they are commanded to do, they are
not innocent.  To the extent that they disobey, they are hypocrites, whose Islam goes no deper than their throats, who are to be killed.

International Defamation Laws

There are no international laws prohibiting
defamation of religion.  The HRC & GA resolutions passed each
year for the last decade do not have the force of law, they serve only
to give immoral authority to national blasphemy laws, which are used to
persecute indigenous minorities. An Ad Hoc Cmte. of the HRC has been
established to elaborate complementary standards to be injected
into ICERD through a binding protocol which would impose Islamic blasphemy law on the signatories to ICERD.

Under Shari’ah, any contradiction of Islam is
punishable. Simply saying “Jesus is Lord” can cost you your head.
Reviling Allah, Moe or Islam can cost you your head.  It is
labeled as mentioning “anything impermissible“.  Simple denial of
Allah’s deity  or Moe’s prophethood is sufficient.

Under the numerous resolutions, associating Islam
with terrorism is condemned.  If the Ad Hoc Cmte. is successful,
this listing of evidence of the association will be a criminal
offense.  3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67,
9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123,
33:26,27,
47:4,49:15,
59:2,13,
61:10-13;
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220.

act of freedom

Our founders revolted against King George in 1776.
Ten years later, J.Q. Adams and T. Jefferson were asking Tripoli’s
Ambassador to England by what right the Barbary Pirates sacked our
shipping.  They were told that it was written in their laws that
Infidels should be attacked.  You would make Jefferson’s report to
Congress a criminal act.

free speech

Free speech is essential to a representative
republic so that the citizens can discuss political issues and matters
of state without fear of persecution.  The First Amendment
guarantees that we can criticize President Obama and his policies
without fear of arrest and detention.

Obamination

  • “Islam is a great religion of peace”
  • “We are not at war with Islam.”
  • “Our Muslim allies.”

Each and every one of those statements is a
God damned lie. Our liberties would be denied and our lives endangered
by criminalizing uttering & publishing refutations of those
lies.  For example: this list of relevant ayat is proof of the
falsehood of the third listed lie. You would make this a criminal
offense.


3:28
[http://www.islam-universe.com/tafsir//3.8052.html],
3:1184:89, 4:139, 4:1445:51, 9:23, 9:33, 60:1, 60:13

Our lives and liberties are already endangered by
prohibiting instructors at West Point and the War College from telling
the truth about Islamic doctrine and practice.

causing violence

Violence is caused by the damnable doctrines of
Islam, not by exposing them in videos.  The Innocence of Muslims
was on line for more than a month with no violence until it was
exploited by Egyptians as a pretext for violence required by their
damnable doctrines.

Defamation

To be defamatory, speech must be false and malicious
under Western legal standards. Islam’s slander law is different; it
prohibits any speech the subject does not like.

R2.2: Slander

Slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a
person that he would dislike
, whether about his body, religion, everyday life,
self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban,
garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning,
cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him.

defamation of Islam

Islam is already infamous because Moe deliberately
built a reputation for barbarian rapine so as to terrorize future
victims, rendering them incapable of mounting an effective
defense.  I refer doubters, dissenters and deniers to  8:57 & 59:13. See, for example, the reaction of one
Jewish settlement:

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.”  Sahih Bukhari 4.52.195

The video does not defame Moe or Islam because its
conceptual content is true.  I disrespectfully direct doubters,
dissenters & deniers to another blog post which documents the fatal
facts:  http://dajjal.posterous.com/innocence-of-muslims-true-or-false-you-be-the
.

Religion

By tradition, it is assumed that anything wearing
the mantle of religion is one, and is an equally valid pathway to
deity, on a par with Judaism and Christianity.  Assumptions make
asses of you.  Islam is perpetual war, far from being benign,
beneficent and anodyne, it is mercenary, martial and malignant.  For those damned
fools who know
that “Islam is not war”, I have a surprise: Moe told the truth
once.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

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

Jihad is the original religion
of Islam, which must not be abandoned on pain of execration.
Jihad is preferred  over agriculture and trade as an economic
model.

banned

If defamation of religions were banned, and the
proscriptions on genocide and propaganda for war were enforced, the
Shari’ah, along with Qur’an,  hadith  & tafsir would be
outlawed and their publication & reading prohibited. I
disrespectfully direct doubters, dissenters & deniers to 1:6, 5:60, 9:34 & 98:6.

September 22, 2012 Posted by | Islam, Petitions, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Innocence of Muslims, Guilt of Muhammad, Treason of the State Department


The U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued a most disgusting statement; an
apology to the brethren of the 19 G’d’d Muslims who wreaked havoc on us
eleven years ago.  The statement is tantamount to treason and
should result in the removal from office of the President and Secretary
of State.  I have reproduced the statement below, inserting
superscripts linked to my commentary which follows below the video and
the horizontal line.  [Click a superscript to read the associated
comment, use your Back space key to return to your place in the
statement.]

http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr091112.html

http://www.facebook.com/USEmbassyCairo/posts/10152090169060158

The
Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts
by misguided individuals1 to hurt the religious feelings
of Muslims2
as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions3. Today,
the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the
United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve
our nation as the fitting response4 to the enemies of democracy5. Respect
for religious beliefs6
is a cornerstone of American democracy7. We firmly reject the actions
by those who abuse8
the universal right of free speech9 to hurt the religious beliefs10
of others

 

“Innocence of Muslims”

Many Muslims are descendants of early victims of
Islam who were converted at sword point or forced to convert by the
impoverishing imposition of jizya.  They may be Muslims in name
only or secular; they may be unaware of the evil character of Moe or
the damnable doctrines & practices given ‘divine’ sanction by his
‘revelations’.  But they are part of the Ummah al-Islamiya and
form the lower level base of support for the believers who engage in
terrorism.

Defeating terrorism requires confronting Islam on
the ideological battlefield, something our government is unwilling to
do.  The ideological plane of this war is left to the private
sector.  The video sampled in the clip used as an excuse for the
barbarian rampage in Egypt and Libya  has the potential to be a
powerful weapon in this battle: the equivalent of a Little Boy &
Fat Man which brought WW2 to an end in the Pacific.  If the
demon’s slaves have not prevailed to pull it down from You Tube, you
will find it embedded below.   I want you to watch it and
share it.  lets make it go viral!

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/heres-the-movie-that-egyptians-just-stormed-the-us-embassy-over/262225/

The article at the Atlantic is my first introduction
to this work of art.  It ain’t perfect. The man cast as Moe seems
a bit young for the role.  The murder of Kinana is not exactly as it happened.  The
murder of Um Quirfa is accurately depicted.

By Jesus, until last year I had not darkened the
door of a theater since 1967.  My recent visit was to a free movie
honoring the 70th. anniversary of a relative.  But, If I find this
movie in the local theater, I blessed will go and watch it, with great
joy and pleasure.  And then I will publish a more complete
review.

So, it pisses off Muslims. That is a good thing; it
gets their attention.  Let them watch it and listen.  Let the
few who are literate turn to the two Sahihs, Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul
Allah, Tabari’s Tahrik, Ibn Sa’d’s Sira and The Sealed Nectar seeking
facts to disprove the film’s accurate depiction of Moe.  They will
find only confirmation of the worst of it.

Muslims need to learn the truth about Moe &
Allah even more than we do.  They must, to escape eternal
damnation, emancipate themselves from Allah’s yoke of slavery.
Once they know the fatal facts, those who retain a scintilla of
vestigial morality will apostatize.  If enough of them do so at
one time, the Salafis will not be able to kill all of them and the
empire of Islam which Moe built will crumble into dust.

Moe really was a lunatic, suffering hallucinations
as a side effect of epileptic seizures. He really did perceive that he
had wrestled with a demon, was possessed, and set out to commit
suicide. He really did marry the six year old daughter of his closest
friend.  He really did suborn murder. he really did attribute
divine sanction to rape, pillage & plunder. Islam really is pure,
unmitigated evil and that is the God blessed truth.

History Recycles

Those who will not learn from history really will be
doomed to repeat it.  When America declared independence, she lost
the protection of the English Navy and her merchantmen were sacked and
their crews held for ransom or sold into slavery.  The new nation
was nearly bankrupted by exaction of tribute.  Adams and Jefferson
asked Tripoli’s Ambassador by what right they attacked us.  His
answer should serve as a life saving lesson, but it has been widely
ignored.

The
ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the
Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all
nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that
it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could
be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and
that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure
to go to heaven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Where have we seen that before?  Only in the most authentic of the
hadith collections: Sahih Bukhari; a Persian general got a similar
answer from one of Umar’s generals.

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord,
has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya
(i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:–
“Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to
lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us
remain alive, shall become your master.” 4.53.386

We could have learned from that, but we did not.  We could have
learned from the ravings of the “blind sheikh”, but we did not.
We could have learned from the threats issued by Usama bin Ladin, but
we did not.  We have one more chance, with the confession of
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will we ever learn? [Emphasis added.]

Many thanks to God, for his kind
gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and
to defend Islam and Muslims.

Therefore, killing
you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding
back to your


attacks, are all
considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion
. These actions are our
offerings to


God. In
addition, it is the imposed reality on Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon,
Afghanistan, Iraq, in the

land of the two holy sites [Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia], and in the
rest of the world, where

Muslims are suffering from your brutality, terrorism, killing ofthe
innocent, and occupying their lands

and their holy sites. Nevertheless, it would have been the greatest religious duty to fight
you over your


infidelity. However,
today, we fight you over defending Muslims, their land, their holy
sites,and their

religion as a whole. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/gitmo20090310.pdf

One sentence stands out beyond the rest:  “Nevertheless, it would
have been the greatest
religious duty to fight you over your


infidelity.” That vital
clue meshes with an infamous statement found in one codeification of
Shari’ah.

Hedaya Vol II, Book IX, Ch. 1 Pg.
141  PDF 154

http://www.archive.org/stream/hedaysorguide00hamigoog#page/n154/mode/1up

  • Text
    •     The destruction of the sword  is
      incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as
      appears from various passages in the  sacred writings which are
      generally received this effect.
  • Marginal Note
    • Infidels may be attacked without provocation.

Muslims do not require provocation to attack
us.  They attack us because we are not Muslims, that is
provocation enough.


  1. Rev. Terry Jones and the creators of
    “Innocence of Muslims” are not misguided, Muslims are.  Both have
    read the Qur’an and at least one sira, Muslims are misguided: they
    believe that excrement, Jones and the movie’s creator recognize Islam
    for what it is: a demonic system of intra-species predation.
  2. Dr. Ali Sina has said that it is necessary to
    insult Muslims in order to get their attention, sort of like whacking a
    stubborn mule with a piece of lumber. The objective is education, not
    injury.
  3. When did you condemn the Qur’an because of
    its insults and execrations against Jews & Christians?  When
    did you condemn its declaration of genocidal warfare against
    us?   Take your tongue out of Satan’s anus long enough to
    condemn these egregious verses:  1:6, 2:161, 5:60, 9:29, 9:30, 98:6.
  4. The fitting response to genocidal
    conquest; existential war is extermination.  Instead, Slick Willy
    treated it as a common criminal matter. Shrub sent men to bleed and die
    where he should have sent nukes.
  5. Democracy is mob rule, as likely to
    result in tyranny as good government. Our founders gave us a limited,
    representative republic, whose existential  enemy should be
    exterminated, not appeased & apologized to.
  6. Evidently you respect the belief that “Only
    Allah has the right to be worshiped.”; I do not, I condemn it because
    it is a denial of my rights as a Christian. Evidently you respect the
    belief that Allah demands continuous conquest; I do not, I condemn it
    because it is the basis of existential warfare against us.
    Evidently you respect the belief that a Prophet must make “a great
    slaughter” before holding prisoners for ransom; I do not, I condemn the
    sanctification of genocide.  Evidently you respect the belief that
    Infidels may be attacked without provocation, their widows raped and
    their orphans sold into slavery; you can go to Hell with the
    Muslims.
  7. The cornerstone of our republic is
    individualism. Freedom of religion means freedom to choose among legitimate
    religions or none at all, without having any religion imposed by force
    or law.  If you had read and understood 3:85, 3:110, Bukhari 6.60.80 and 8:39, you would know that Islam contravenes our
    rights; imposing itself by force.
  8. This blog post is not an abuse of free
    speech, it is an effort to educate and arouse fellow citizens so that
    they will rise up as one disrespectfully demanding the extinction of
    Islam.  Paul Revere’s ride was not an abuse of free speech.
    “Innocence of Muslims”, International Judge the Koran Day and
    International Judge Muhammad Day are not abuses of free speech, they
    are legitimate warnings of clear, imminent and persistent
    danger.
  9. Inoffensive speech does not require
    protection. It is specifically offensive speech: expressions of fact
    and logical opinion which piss off violators of human rights that
    requires the protection afforded by the first amendment.  Moe had
    his critics murdered, they needed protection; they did not have
    it.
  10. Charlie Brown said it best
    “Nobody likes having his cherished beliefs questioned.” Muslims believe
    that they serve Allah by killing and terrorizing us.  There is
    nothing wrong about exposing and offending that belief!

 

September 12, 2012 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, Treason | , , , , | Leave a comment

UN Censorship: Outlawing Criticism of Islam


On October 27, ’11, the United Arab Emirates, acting on behalf of the OIC, submitted a draft resolution entitled “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief”.

With the exception of one additional conjunction and preposition, the title is identical to that of   A/HRC/RES/16/18 passed this spring. A/C.3/66/L.47, currently in the 3rd Committee,  is two pages longer and has one more enumerated paragraph.
There are major problems in the list of affirmations.

Reaffirming also the obligation of States to prohibit discrimination on the basis
of religion or belief and to implement measures to guarantee the equal and effective
protection of the law,

The OIC  is not acting in good faith; they can not simultaneously base their domestic legislation on Shari’ah and reaffirm the obligation to guarantee equal protection of the law because Shari’ah:

  • Subjects indigenous Jews & Christians to a punitive, humiliating tax called jizya.  Reliance of the Traveller, Book O11.4
  • Disqualifies Jews & Christians from testifying against Muslims. O24.2(c)
  • Prohibits construction & maintenance of churches.  O11.5-7
  • Prohibits public manifestation of non-Muslim religions. O11.5-6
  • Sets the indemnity for wrongful death of a non-Muslim as a fraction that paid for a Muslim.  O4.2
  • Prohibits a divorced non-Muslim woman from obtaining child custody if her children are Muslims because their father was. M13.2(c).
Reaffirming further that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated,

The right to life is primary, without it, all other rights are null and void.  Islam implicitly denies the right to life: “And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us” Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. Islamic law explicitly permits killing non-Muslim men taken captive. O9.14

On page 218 of al-Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1, we find the clearest statement of the fatal fact of Islam.   “Secondly, capitation-tax is a substitute for destruction in respect to the infidels,”.

My First Amendment right of free speech which prohibits the government from criminalizing the truthful declarations made above, does not in any way or to any extent detract from a Muslims ‘right’ to ‘practice his religion’.  Free speech does not prevent or impair Iman, Salat, Saum, Hajj or Zakat.  It simply permits uttering & publishing truthful statements about an institution inimical to our lives & liberties.

The problem is that the practice of Islam entails jihad, which is defined as “to war against non-Muslims” O9.0.  “Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, ” 9:123. Islam is all or nothing, inseverable “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.” 2:85.  Jihad is a communal obligation binding on all eligible adult male Muslims and must be performed in every year. O9.1

Islam can not be practiced in obedience to Allah and in emulation of Moe without voiding the human rights of kuffar.  It is therefore impossible that a right to practice Islam can exist.   Stating this fatal fact is not defamatory neither is it negative stereotyping nor is it inciting violence. It is a simple statement of fact, which, if acknowledged by the legislative and executive branches of our government, must result in removal of the umbrella of First Amendment protection from Islam.

Reaffirming the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance,

I hope that I am not the only one who perceives the irony in that sentence.  The authors intend that sentence to mean what it says in the Orwellian sense, they do not intend it to have the meaning the words denote.  To the authors of the resolution, “combating religious intolerance” means  combating resistance to Islam.

If religious intolerance is to be combated then it is necessary that Islam be combated, because Islam is  so extremely intolerant that it mandates perpetual war to establish a global monopoly for itself in 8:39.  The Qur’an refers to Jews & Christians as the “worst of living creatures” in 98:6, and curses us in 9:30.    Since the Qur’an is perfected 5:3 & immutable 10:64, Islam can not be reformed, it must be eliminated.

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,

Look below the surface of that run on sentence, to the embedded false premise: promotion of tolerance of Islam.  Text books used in schools throughout Arabia quote 3:85 and the infamous genocide hadith Sahih Bukhari 4.53.177. They demand that we convert our schools into Islamic indoctrination centers.

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;

To discover the real meaning of that run on sentence, read this annual Islamophobia report published by the OIC: 4th OIC observatory report on Islamophobia (May 2010 to April 2011) .  See what they complain about most in their monthly reports. Note the prominent mention of anti-Islamic political parties in Europe.

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;

“Advocacy of religious hatred..incitement to… violence” describes the Qur’an, as anyone knows who has read Surahs Al Fatiha, Al-Ma’idah , Al-Anfal and At-Taubah.    Does anyone believe that Islam seeks to enforce Article 4 of ICERD against itself?

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

Is the prima facie meaning of that sentence valid?  Only if the organ of cognition is the anus, not the brain!  U.N. documents favor the term “inter alia”, meaning between the words. In this case, it is necessary to refer to previous statements. Ban Ki-moon’s statement about the short documentary by Geert Wilders speaks volumes.

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, Fitna is “hate speech” and  “incitement to violence”.  The hate speech displayed in Fitna has three sources: the Qur’an, hadith & raving Imams. The violence displayed in Fitna is Islamic violence.  At no point does Wilders express hatred or incite violence in his documentary.

On March 1 of ’11, Ekmeleddin Ishanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC, addressed the HRC.  I will add emphasis to make a few significant phrases stand out.

OIC has a principled position against defamation of any
religion, dehumanization of the followers or denigration of
symbols sacred to all religions. The developments
including the ban of construction of minarets, the attempts
towards burning of Quran and the use of Islamophobia as
an instrument of electoral politics are ominous. There is an
urgent need to initiate and sustain what I would like to term
as ‘preventive cultural diplomacy’. We need to move
beyond event based calls for action to create spaces for
structured engagement. The Human Rights framework
provides with a concrete basis for this engagement. We
believe that the workshops on incitement to hatred under
the Durban mandate constitute and important avenue for a
synthesis aimed at bridging the divergence of views. I
reiterate my call, during the 15th Session of the Council,
for establishing an Observatory at the Office of the High
Commissioner to monitor acts of defamation of all religions
or incitement to hatred or violence on religious grounds as
a first step towards concerted action at the international
level. Let me also recall that I had outlined eight areas of
action for consideration by states, at both the national and
international level, with a view to dealing with defamation
issue. I am pleased to note that the proposal has found some
resonance.

The OIC has shown flexibility in negotiations with our
partners over the past couple of years and we would now
expect some reciprocity. The perception that supporting
the resolution would throttle one’s right to freedom
expression is only a myth. Freedom of expression will
always be upheld but it cannot be allowed to be a tool to
use for inciting fear and hate.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I felt
encouraged by some positive and constructive proposals in
finding a way forward on the text of the Resolution. If there
is a genuine political will on the part of all to address the
issue of incitement of hatred against religions in earnest, I
am confident that we can achieve a consensus.

Another speech to the HRC, by Pakistan’s Ambassador, reveals even more, with greater clarity. I reproduce it here, from an earlier blog post in which I took it on point by point.

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.

Burning a Qur’an after a mock trial is not hate speech, neither is it incitement to violence.  Congressional hearings on “radicalization” are not hate speech, neither are they incitement to violence.

This blog post is not hate speech, neither is it incitement to violence. It is a warning to American citizens about a clear, proximate and persistent threat to our right of free speech.  The OIC, acting through the United Nations, seeks to impose its blasphemy law on the entire human race.  Reliance of the Traveller, Book O8.7 lists 20 “acts that entail” Apostasy.  Any and all criticism and questioning of Allah, Moe & Islam is prohibited under penalty of death.

Previous resolutions expressly condemned association of Islam with “terrorism and human rights violations”. But Allah said that he would and did cast terror and Moe said that he was “made victorious with terror“.   The expressions have changed, the agenda has not. We have won no victory, we have misinterpreted a defeat.

Please visit http://wwwcongress.org/  and send a message to Obamination, your Representative & Senator demanding a NO! vote on this vile resolution.

Related blog posts:

November 16, 2011 Posted by | Islam, United Nations | , , , , , | 3 Comments

Islamophobia- Koran Burning-Censorship


When it comes to Islamophobia, there is no end of craven cowardice. Our elected and appointed leaders seem devoid of spinal & testicular fortitude. They demonstrate their abject fear of Islam by attempting to appease it through condemnation and censorship of free speech.

Texas v. Johnson,  stands as precedent for protecting flag burning as a mode of free speech. [Wikipedia]   The flag is a symbol of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  Burning it in protest demonstrates enmity to our precious rights & liberties.  If that act is protected free expression, how can expressing contempt for a war cult that inculcates hatred and incites genocidal jihad/terror be any less protected?

Bare Naked Islam sounded an early warning: Reid & Graham consider ban on Koran burning.

“I  wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war,”

“During World War II, we had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy,” Graham said, adding that he wanted to do “anything we can to push back here in America against acts like this that put our troops at risk.”

.

put our troops at risk

Pastors Jones & Sapp did not put our troops at risk; President G.W. Bush sent them into harm’s way. The accursed abomination should have been answered with tactical nuclear warheads, not boots on the ground.  Sending troops to “liberate” people who prefer to remain slaves is a fool’s errand of the worst sort.  So long as the population of Afghanistan remains Muslim, we have lost; our blood and treasure has been wasted.

Provocations are desired and sought to rationalize jihad and motivate the rabble to participate, but they are not the cause of Islamic violence.  Islamic violence is doctrine driven, not grievance driven.

  • 2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.
    • Footnote to 2:190. (V.2:190) Al-Jihâd (holy fighting) in Allâh’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islâm and is one of its pillar (on which it stands). By Jihâd Islâm is established, Allâh’s Word is made superior, (His Word being Lâ ilaha illallâh which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh), and His Religion (Islâm) is propagated. By abandoning Jihâd (may Allâh protect us from that) Islâm is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihâd is an obligatory duty in Islâm on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.
      Narrated ‘Abdullâh bin Mas‘ûd رضي الله عنه: I asked Allâh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم “O Allâh’s Messenger! What is the best deed?” He replied, “To offer the Salât (prayers) at their early fixed stated times.” I asked, “What is next in goodness?” He replied, “To be good and dutiful to your parents.” I further asked, “What is next in goodness?” He replied, “To participate in Jihâd in Allâh’s Cause.” I did not ask Allâh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more. (Sahih Al-Bukhâri, Vol.4, Hadîth No.41).
  • 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
  • 9:29.Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
  • 9:120.  It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allah’s Messenger (Muhammad SAW when fighting in Allah’s Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allah, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allah wastes not the reward of the Muhsinun
  • 9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious – see V.2:2).
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
    Narrated Anas bin Malik:
    Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”
  • Reliance of the TravellerO9.1: The Obligatory Character of Jihad

    Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2).  When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

    “He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,”

    and Allah Most High having said:

    “Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good” (Koran 4:95).

    If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

    The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year.

    The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).

  • Al-Hedaya Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1
    • Page 141 The destruction of the sword  is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the  sacred writings which are generally received this effect.
    • Marginal note: Page 140
      • War must be carried on against the Infidels, at all times, by some party of the Muslims.
“During World War II, we had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy,” Graham said, adding that he wanted to do “anything we can to push back here in America against acts like this that put our troops at risk.”

Flip your calender back  66 years. Should an American citizen be punished for criticizing, condemning or burning Mein Kampf?  Why, exactly?  The     major difference between Mein Kampf and the Qur’an is the latter’s purported divine origin.

Our troops and our society were put at risk by the weakness of previous Presidents.  Carter responded with dithering timidity when our Embassy was seized. When he finally acted, his action was poorly planned and ineffectually implemented.  Displaying weakness to a predator invites further attacks.

Reagan sent the Marines to save Arafat’s bacon, a fool’s errand if there ever was one. Hundreds of Marines died as a result. Reagan reacted with a few artillery shells; he should have erased the Hezbollah enclaves in Lebanon.

The Wall Street Journal reveals some interesting remarks from Gen. David Petraeus.

“This was a surprise,”

The event was publicized months in advance on a web site, in press releases and a Facebook page.  I know that the government knew about it because the Department of Homeland Security read my blog posts about it well in advance of the event.  The OIC was aware of it immediately and held an emergency meeting four days after the event to draft a  letter to Ban Ki-moon.

“hateful, extremely disrespectful and enormously intolerant.”

In view of the doctrine outlined above, hatred disrespect & intolerance of Islam’s demonic scripture is certainly well warranted.  Bitter kvetching about those attitudes is evidence of extreme intellectual incapacity or inactivity.

From Newsmax we learn that the Majority leader of the Senate is aroused.

“We’ll take a look at this of course. As to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Reid: Probe of Quran Burning Considered

George Washington said it best: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
That is exactly what Islam demands. Islamic law forbids any and every negative expression about itself.

  • Reliance of the Traveller
    • O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

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

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

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

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

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

If a Muslim says any of those things, he is an apostate, and must be killed.

    • O8.1

      When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

      O8.2

      In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

How does that apply to non-Muslims?  When Muslims conquer Christians, the Christians must agree to a treaty of protection and pay Jizya. The treaty imposes certain limitations on them, and if they violate it, they are subject to execution.

    • O11.10

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

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

      -2- conceals spies of hostile forces;

      -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

      -4- kills a Muslim;

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

    • O11.11

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

      • O9.14

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

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

The list of impermissible expressions is contained in O8.7, reproduced above.  That is what they seek to impose upon us at the UN through resolutions and a binding protocol to ICERD.  The mobs demand that Pastor Jones be executed.

April 4, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Jihad, Petraeus, Political Correctness | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Geert Wilders Defines the Issues: Free Speech & Civilization


Bare Naked Islam posted a video clip of Geert Wilders addressing the judicial panel of his retrial.  The video is in Dutch with English sub titles.

In this speech, Wilders asserts that the light of Western Civilization is being snuffed out by Islamization.  He also drives home the issue of freedom of expression.

“The lights are going out slowly all over Europe.  All over the continent where our culture flourished and where man created freedom, prosperity and civilization.  the foundation of the West is under attack everywhere.

All over Europe the elites are acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us four fourteen centuries.  An ideology that has sprung from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people freedom.

The Islamic Mozart, the Islamic Gerard Reve, the Islamic Bill Gates; they do not exist because without freedom there is no creativity.

With everything in me I believe the ideology of Islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and  can only produce societies that are b ackwaqrd and impoverished.

Surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology. My trial is not an isolated incident.  Only fools believe it is.  All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations.Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass immigration, which will ultimately result in an Islamic Europe – a Europe without freedom: Eurabia.

The lights are going out all over Europe.  Anyone who thinks or speaks indivdually is at risk.  Freedom-loving  citizens who criticize Islam or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between Islam and crime or honour killing must suffer, and are threatened, persecuted or criminalized.  Those who speak the truth are in danger.

The lights are going out allover Europe.  Everywhere the Orwellian thought police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back within the confines where it is allowed to think.

Chairman, members of the court:  This trial is not about me.  itr is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country.  it is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people.  For  centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology. Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right.  Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.  the lights are going out all over Europe.  Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said there last year: It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of a free people – to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom.

Hence it is a right and a duty – and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament – to speak the truth about the evil ideology that is called Islam.  I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphing from this trial.  I hope not only that i shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe. “


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pfEJaI2iS4&feature=player_embedded

My opinion is that Wilders is more relaxed and fluent in the retrial than he was in the first round.  He appears to sense impending victory. I suspect that he may have had some coaching.  This trial is likely to make history no matter what the outcome.

February 10, 2011 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , | Leave a comment

Free Speech Has No Future


Cass Sunstein: The Future of free Speech, serialized in Little Mag, should serve as a warning of things to come if Obamination remains in power or is succeeded by another Socialist.

Sunstein discusses the concept of public forums, finding them crucial to our form of government. He hints at considering the means of communication as a public good.  Its a long way from Hyde Park to the internet, but Sunstein wants to conflate them. Examine his central concern.

“In a system with public forums and general interest intermediaries, people will frequently come across materials that they would not have chosen in advance – and for diverse citizens, this provides something like a common framework for social experience.”

In a small village, a single newspaper may serve as the local news source. One church, one fraternity, one school, one theatre  and one coffee shop may give the villagers shared experiences. But the USA is a great nation, not a small village.  There are many different institutions and services.  There are numerous newspapers, radio and television broadcasters, with divergent points of view and market niches.

Consumers can and do choose, and “birds of a feather flock together”, that is the way nature works.  Once the nation stared at Chronkite or Brinkley, and soaked up the same lies together.  Now we soak up lies from many different sources.

“All too many people are now exposed to louder echoes of their own voices, resulting, on occasion, in social fragmentation, misunderstanding, and sometimes even enmity. Perhaps it is better for people to hear fewer controversial views than for them to hear a single such view, stated over and over again. I now turn to this issue.”

Does Sunstein want to force Liberals to listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News?  Yeah, right.  I have sampled Randy Rhodes, John Hightower, Larry King and others. They raise my blood pressure too much. Keith Olbermann would make my bladder burst. I’ll continue to listen to Rush, Sean & Mark; if Cass disapproves, he can go to Hell.

“If greater communications choices produce greater extremism, society may, in many cases, be better off as a result. But when group discussion tends to lead people to more strongly held versions of the same view with which they began, and if social influences and limited argument pools are responsible, there is legitimate reason for concern.”

“Extremism in the defense of liberty…” What is the value in arbitrarily decreasing the intensity or changing the direction of our views? This is all about cementing Scialists in power.

“Consider discussions among hate groups on the Internet and elsewhere. If the underlying views are unreasonable, it makes sense to fear that these discussions may fuel increasing hatred and a socially corrosive form of extremism.”

Who is to judge what ‘views’ are ‘unreasonable’?  Here come the thought police!

This does not mean that the discussions can or should be regulated in a system dedicated to freedom of speech. But it does raise questions about the idea that “more speech” is necessarily an adequate remedy – especially if people are increasingly able to wall themselves off from competing views.

What is the remedy?

The basic issue here is whether something like a “public sphere,” with a wide range of voices, might not have significant advantages over a system in which isolated consumer choices produce a highly fragmented speech market.

Should we be like a doctatorship with state run media feeding us a steady diet of propaganda?

“The most reasonable conclusion is that it is extremely important to ensure that people are exposed to views other than those with which they currently agree, in order to protect against the harmful effects of group polarisation on individual thinking and on social cohesion.”

Yeah, that’s the solution: remote controlled idiot boxes blasting opinions inimical to our own, holding us as a captive audience!

For those who believe that the free speech principle has democratic foundations, and is not about consumer sovereignty, government regulation of television, radio, and the Internet need not be objectionable, at least so long as it is reasonably taken as an effort to promote democratic goals.

The free speech principle is crucial to our form of government. Voters must be allowed to communicate relevant facts and opinion and debate them openly in order to make wise decisions on candidates and related issues.

In deprecating ‘consumer sovereignty’, Sunstein deprecates popular sovereignty as well.  The people are sovereign, we give limited power to the government for limited  amd well defined purposes.  The popular sovereignty and consumer sovereignty are inseverable; if either is lost, both are lost. We can not be free if artificially & arbitrarily deprived of choices.

Sunstein advocaztes mandates & disclosure reports for broadcasters including: educational programming, closed captioning, free airtime for office seakers, coverage of local issues and allowing opposition views to be heard.

He does not stop there. he advocates requiring web sites to provide links to web sites with opposing views and “allow competing voices to be heard”.

Adding insult to injury, Sunstein advocates ‘voluntary self-regulation’.  The variety of competing viewpoints might be reduced by “a ‘code’ of appropriate conduct”.   The code would include, allowing opposing views, avoiding ‘unnecessary’ sensationalism and offering arguments rather than quick ‘sound-bytes’.

The ‘code ‘ would be “encouraged but not imposed by government”.  If the ‘code’ is not ‘voluntarily’ implemented, the government “might impose “must carry” rules on highly partisan Websites”. So much for ‘voluntary self-regulation’.  When you urinate on my shoes and tell me “its raining”, you insult my intelligence.

The Unfairness Doctrine is rising from the dead, in a disguised and expanded form.  It is all about squelching dissent under color of improving social intercourse.  They might as well limit us to one political party for the purpose of promoting ‘common experience’m unity & social cohesion.

LibTards kvetch about ‘balkanization’ while practicing the politics of division: pandering to Mexicans, Queers, abortion fanatics & Islam and engaging in class warfare.  There is something rotten in Washington: Obamination. Wise up, rise up, speak out and turn them out in the next election cycle!

December 3, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , | 2 Comments

Pat Condell Speaks up for Free Speech, Join Him!


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

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

Free to Believe has the best petition against the resolution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 12, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , | Leave a comment

Free Speech vs Shielding Islam from Critics


Free Speech vs Shielding Islam from Critics

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

[1:05:08]

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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


 

 

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

    1. Acts entailing apostasy.
    2. Penalty.: scroll up to 613.
      1. Application  to Non-Muslims:
        1. o11.10 -5- or mentions
          something impermissible
          about
          Allah, the Prophet
          (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.
        2. o11.11 When a subject’s agreement
          with the state has been violated
          , the caliph chooses between the
          four alternatives
          mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).
        3. o9.14
          When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: 025) considers
          the interests (0: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the
          prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or
          ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
    3. Defamation of Religions UNHRC March 25 ’10
      03/26/10  Details of the resolution and graph of the vote
      trend showing declining support.
    4. 4U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext
      & Context

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

    1. We shall cast terror
    2. I will cast terror
    3. to strike terror
    4. Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their
      hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them)
      you made captives.
    5. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh –
      Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear
      in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh.

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

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

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

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

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

Geert Wilders & Free Speech on Trial


Vlad Tepes published a video clip from the trial of Geert  Wilders.  Run time is only 4:41,  but the dialogue is fact paced, and the sub titles flash by rapidly.  On first viewing, I am not certain of the attitude of the  chairman of the bench.  It seems to be antagonistic, but there may be a subtext of  delving deeper into the issues.  It could also be some kind of perverse attack, like taunting a bull in the ring.  I need to replay the video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6zzdNRysgs&feature=player_embedded

I discover on review that I misinterpreted the Chairman’s opening comments. I thought he was closing the court to the audience for the duration of Geert’s remarks, instead, he was directing them to let the Court depart first for security reasons.

What is the big deal about debate?  Does the court desire to  engage Wilders in debate on the details of Islamic doctrine & practices to which he objects and which he exposed?

Why does Wilders declare that he has said all he has to say on the subject?   He stands by  his statements, but seems unwilling to give a detailed defense of them.  Have the judges, prosecution or defense considered the documentation I published?  Does the court expect the defense to prove every point?  Would they allow him to speak freely if he tried to offer proof?

It appears as though Wilders is wary of being entrapped; provoked to say something outrageous that the prosecution could seize upon to convict him.

October 8, 2010 Posted by | Freedom Of Speech, Political Correctness | , , | Leave a comment

Waki Paki Jurisprudence


Outlook India reports that the Pakistani jurist who ordered that Facebook be blocked has ordered the Foreign Ministry to direct the permanent Ambassador to the U.N. to submit a resolution complaining of the Everybody Draw Muhammad Day page on Facebook.   The ban has been lifted, but could be reimposed at the next hearing June 15.

The article included these titillating tidbits from the order.

“The canons of Islam do not prohibit or limit any individual’s right to freedom of expression and speech.

Rather it emulates the phrase, ‘Your liberty ends where the nose of the other persons starts’, meaning thereby that any right to freedom of expression and speech of one person would not prejudice the right of self-respect and dignity of the other person,” the judge said in his order.

“The core issue involved in the instant matter was the publication of blasphemous material which was viewed as a deliberate attempt to malign the very holy and sanctimonious stature of Prophet (Mohammed) and any regulation made for the protection of the deeply sensitive and emotional sentiments should not be viewed as (being) in conflict with an individual’s universally accepted rights of freedom, expressions and speech,”
The canons of Islam expressly forbid any negative expression about Islam, its doctrines and sanctities. We turn to Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 8 to view the penalty for apostasy. Apostasy carries a death sentence.

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

O8.7 lists a set of acts which entail apostasy.  Items 4,5,6,7,14, 15, 16 & 19 are relevant. Saying anything negative about Allah, Moe and their system gets your head lopped off.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

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

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

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

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24). )
Of course that could not apply to us kafiroon, could it?  Chapter 11 deals with non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state;  O11.10  lists five acts which violate the treaty of dhimmitude, subjecting the violator to the death penalty. Of these, the fifth item is of interest to us.

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.
Got a clue yet?  The Jurist  ruled that Shari’ah does not impair our right of free expression.  Shari’ah explicitly contradicts his ruling.  Sorry, Justice Chaudhry, you do not  have a right to close off all expression that offends your tender sensibilities.  You have a right to withdraw from  the presence of the speaker, to change the t.v. or radio channel, or to point your web browser to a different web site.  We have a Constitution which says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [Emphasis added.]  That Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is superior to Shari’ah and to international law and to your vaunted U.N. resolutions.  So, kiss off!

Some people lack extensive knowledge of  the tenets of Islam. Some lack the ability and patience to  vocalize their outrage.  They express their negative emotion with art.  Others like me have no artistic skill with which to express our outrage.  We are limited to the written and spoken word as a means of expressing our outrage and sharing factual information with our fellows.  American citizens have a Constitutionally  guaranteed right to express what we know about Moe’s War Cult.  We will not be silenced.

June 2, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: