Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Speaking Out Against Intolerance


Speaking Out Against Intolerance

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

Calls upon all
States to take the
following action
s, as
called for by the
Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, to foster
a domestic
environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect by

(e) Speaking out
against intolerance
, including advocacy of
religious hatred

that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence
;

speaking out

    This suggestion from the OIC was included in HRC Res 16/18 and implemented in September
of  ’12 by Obamination’s bitching about The Innocence of
Muslims
,
which
they falsely blamed for the  Benghazi  Attack. 
Obamination condemned the video without contesting the validity of its
conceptual content, which has been verified from authentic sources.

intolerance

    The intolerance displayed in the video comes from
Moe: his
intolerance of Christianity, Judaism & Pagans. The video itself is
not intolerant.

advocacy

    The video does not advocate violence against persons
or property.
Moe advocated and engaged in violence, which the video accurately
portrays.

religious hatred

    The video accurately portrays Islamic religious
hatred, it does not advocate hatred.

incitement

    The video accurately portrays Moe preaching military
conquest, it
exposes incitement without engaging in it.  The rioting resulted
from
rabble rousing kutbah in mosques during Jumah Salat, not from the
video. Christians who viewed the video were not incited to violence by
it.

violence

    The violence realistically depicted in the video
emanates from the damnable doctrines of Islam enshrined in the Qur’an and exemplified in the sunnah.  
The riots blamed on the video came from mosques, not from
churches. 
The video does not suggest that anyone should engage om vop;emce. the
Qur’an commands it, Moe exemplified it and the Imams preach it.

November 15, 2013 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Counter Jihad: Outlaw Islam and its Texts!


 

Every time Muslims and their dhimmis bitterly bitch about exposing
Allah as an impotent, demonic idol  and Moe as a false prophet,
barbarian, lecher, child molester and profiteer, we need to slap them
down with the fatal facts of Islam from its own canon of scripture,
tradition, exegesis, jurisprudence and biography.   Muslims
and their dhimis demand censorship because it is impossible to refute
the fatal facts of Islam.  That task is hopeless!

Demands for  imposition of Islamic blasphemy
laws must be met with contumacious contradiction: demands that Islam be
stripped of its false mantle of religion and outlawed, its slaves
emancipated and its institutions closed forever.  The Qur’an and
hadith are in flagrant violation of international human rights
covenants which outlaw racist supremacism, incitement to hatred,
violence & genocide.

http://islamexposed.blogspot.com/2010/09/international-quran-petition.html

https://snooper.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/outlaw-islam/

    If defamation of Allah and Moe is to be outlawed,
then how about defamation of Jesus Christ? The G’d’d Qur’an denies
Christ’s patrimony, deity, crucifixion, death & resurrection
and  hadith depicts him as a genocidal warlord who will lead
Muslims in the final genocide of the Jews.  I disrespectfully
direct doubters, dissenters & deniers to:  https://snooper.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/the-defamation-of-jesus-christ/
where they can obtain a clue.

If incitement to violence is to be  outlawed,
then consider Surahs Al-Anfal & At-Taubah of the G’d’d Qur’an and
the books of Jihad & Expedition of the various collections of
hadith. Consider also Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter
9.  By your own standards, Islam must be outlawed!  I
disrespectfully direct doubters, dissenters & deniers to : https://snooper.wordpress.com/whats-wrong-with-islam-muslims/
, where they can obtain a clue.

The video: Innocence of Muslims
and the Islamic and  political reactions to it have spurred the
creation of a series of blog posts which are cataloged below.

Innocence
of Muslims Update: OIC Demands Blasphemy Law

This post reproduces and dissects, concept by
concept, the OIC’s contumacious demand for international imposition of
Islamic blasphemy law which I presume was delivered by Zamir Akram,
Pakistan’s U.N. Ambassador.  A brief commentary and four critical
questions proceed the embedded video Innocence of Muslims.
which is followed by the text of the contumacious demand.

Crucial concepts in the screed are represented by H1
headers followed by flaming hot commentary laced with links to Islam’s
canon.  Quotes include selections from the Qur’an & Sahih
Bukhari, the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson and George
Washington.

The sections dealing with respect & tolerance
and peace & security in the final paragraphs push extra
buttons.

Morsi
@ UN: Spew of Feces

This post provides a link to the statement of
Egypt’s President Morsi, presents some crucial quotes and tears them
apart with H1 headers leading to the flames.  Quotes include
George Washington Reliance of the Traveller and Hedaya with several
links to the Qur’an and ahadith documenting the nexus between Islam and
terrorism.  Last but not least is the embedded video.

Yudhoyono
@ UN: Spew of Feces

This post provides a link to Indonesia’s statement
and quotes the most important paragraphs.  Like the other posts in
this Spew of Feces series, it uses H1 headers to contain crucial
concepts and tears them apart with links to Islam’s canon.  One
section features the embedded video.

Zardari
@ UN: Spew of Feces

Pakistan’s statement is nine pages long. I extracted
the important turds, represented them with H1 headers and tore them
apart with links to the Islam’s canon and The Qur’anic Concept of
War
Innocence
of Muslims
is embedded twice due to a software glitch and
careless editing. The first installment of another, more academic video
using artwork and narrative from Sira is also embedded.

Obamination
@ UN Spew of Feces

Unlike the other posts in this series, this one does
not contain the video. Obamination’s treachery & hypocrisy are
documented with a full transcript of his spew of feces, with selected
turds ensconced in H1 headers and refuted with reference to Islam’s
canon.

Innocence
of Muslims Update: High Commissioner for Human Rights

The statement is short, but tightly packed with
turds, which are extracted to H1 headers and flushed with citations to
Islam’s canon.  Video of the statement is included along with Innocence of Muslims
and a new Pat
Condell video
which makes things explicitly clear. The post
concludes with a George Washington quote.

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

Though he is out of office, the President of the 66th
gets the same treatment as the other traitors to the human race. A link
to the statement is followed by an outline of its salient points.
The video is embedded, and quotes from Montesqieu, J.Q. Adams and
Churchill are included.  Islamic blasphemy laws would make those
statements illegal.  Links include the Qur’an & hadith.

Innocence
of Muslims Update: White House Press Secy

That spew of feces gets the same treatment as the
others, though it is mercifully shorter.  The video is embedded,
too.

Innocence
of Islam Update: FOREIGN MINISTER AL-OTHMANI Morocco

Short and bitter, this screed gets the same
treatment including the video.

Innocence
of Muslims Update:Clinton’s Crap

The bitch makes my ears itch, so I did not watch the
video, I read and reproduced the transcript.  This post does not
include the video but it has Qur’an and hadith quotes.

Innocence
of Muslims: True or False; You Be The Judge!

Readers asked, so I answered. The conceptual content
of the video is essentially true.  I back that conclusion up with
copious quotes from Islam’s canon including Ishaq, Tabari & Ibn
Sa’d’s sira.   This post is long and detailed, with links to
available source documents possible.

Innocence
of Muslims Update: Muslim Brotherhood Spews Snake Feces!

The entire spew of turd is reproduced and dissected
with H1 headers and quotes from Islam’s canon with the video embedded
at the end of the post.

September 29, 2012 Posted by | free speech, Islam, Political Correctness | , , , , | Leave a comment

Ad Hoc Cmte: War on Free Speech


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

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

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

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

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

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

2lStSession of the Human Rights Council

Agenda Item 9

Elaboration of international complementary standards to the
lnternational

Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

normative standards

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

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

What is impermissible?

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

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

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

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

-16- to
revile the religion of Islam
;

incitement to racial and religious hatred

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13118 updated)

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


2013; (AIHRCI 13118
updated),

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

Council on the Elaboration of lnternational Complementary Standards to
the

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

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

hold informal consultations, within existing resources, with
regional and

political coordinators during the inter-sessional period between the
fourth

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

prepare the fifth session and collect concrete proposals for

discussion on the topics of xenophobia, establishment, designation or

maintaining of national mechanisms with competencies to protect against
and

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

xenophobia and related intolerance; and procedural gaps with regard to

the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

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

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

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

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

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization


The Draft Resolution
“Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of,
and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against,
persons based on religion or belief” contains only minor changes,
essentially maintaining the malignant malarkey of HRC 16/18 
passed last year.

Now that the draft has been submitted and posted to
the web, you can expect to see and hear more assertions of
victory.  The self-appointed experts will tell us that the
“defamation of religions’ meme has been abandoned; proved by the boiler
plate paragraphs carried over from last year’s resolutions.

The draft will be discussed and probably adopted by
consensus  Tuesday March 20, 2012.  There is nothing we can
do to stop it. The good news is that the resolution has no enforcement
mechanism, its only effect is adding false moral support to Islam’s
victim card narrative and its persecution of indigenous
minorities.

The draft was submitted by Pakistan on behalf of the
OIC; its initiative is Islamic.

free expression

   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,

Am I the only one who perceives the inversion of
fact and fantasy?  Freedom of opinion & expression is the
central target of the resolution.  They demand that we tolerate
the intolerable: perpetuation, propagation & promotion of the
concept of divine mandate to conquer and subjugate the entire world
through deception, aggressive wars
of conquest
and terrorism.  Islam asserts a divine mandate to
kill
us
; rape & enslave our widows and orphans while seizing
our real & personal property
.

The strategic objective of the resolution is the
enactment & enforcement of national & international legislation
criminalizing all criticism of Islam.  When I write “Muhammad was
a terrorist.”, which is substantiated ty Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220,
I mention something impermissible and should be killed according to
Islamic law.  They want that law enforced! That is the purpose of
the draft resolution.

defamation

While the defamation meme is implicit rather than
explicit in this resolution, the Draft Resolution on “Freedom of religion or belief
contains, in the seventh paragraph on its second page, an important
clue to reality.  Do not overlook this clue!

Emphasizes that no religion should be
equated with terrorism
, as this may have


adverse consequences on the
enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief of all


members of the religious
community concerned;

freedom to terrorize

Allah said that he would cast terror: 3:151
& 8:12.
Allah
said that he cast terror: 33:26,
59:2.
Moe said that he was made
victorious with terror: Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220.  Muslims are commanded to obey
Allah
and emulate
Moe
.  If Islam is equated with terrorism, then it must be
prohibited by law.

Islam is an inseverable package deal: all or
nothing, specified in 2:85.
Believers fight in Allah’s cause, killing and being killed specified
in  9:111.
Believers who take any
step to injure or enrage disbelievers
get extra credit for an
upgrade to their seat in Allah’s Celestial Bordello.

My right to freedom of opinion & expression; to
state the fact that terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam, must
be subordinated to the Muslims’ right to engage in terrorism.

intolerance

Islam imposes the death penalty for apostasy,
including reviling Allah, Moe or Islam.  The penalty is explicitly
stated in Reliance of the Traveller O8.1; the list of
apostatizing acts in O8.7 tells us what is impermissible to
mention.  The rule is extended to dhimmis (conquered Jews &
Christians) in O11.10.  Islam does not tolerate criticism of
Moe & Allah.  Moe had critics murdered.

The OIC is demanding, through the agency of the
Human Rights Council, that we be exhorted and compelled to tolerate a
war cult, disguised as a religion, which perpetuates genocidal
conquest.

Expresses deep concem 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;

derogatory stereotyping

Muslims
are genocidally violent
” has meaning as a derogatory stereotype
precisely because Islam
is genocidally violent

(alleged defamation) and Muslims are adherents to Islam.  History
shows us that the Hindu, Assyrian & Armenian genocides were
perpetrated by Muslims, on orders of the caliph.  The defamation
meme is malignantly false, ostensibly eliminated yet deeply embedded in
the resolution.  That which is intrinsically infamous can not be
defamed.

programmes and agendas

What they have in mind is the Dutch, Swiss &
Austrian freedom parties and “Islamophobic” comments and campaign
advertisements by American politicians.

Expresses its concern that
incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination and


related violence, as well as
of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of


religion or belief, continue
to rise around the world, and condemns, in this


context, any advocacy of
religious hatred against individuals that constitutes


incitement to discrimination,
hostility or violence, and urges States to take


effective measures, as set
forth in the present resolution, consistent with their


obligations under
international human rights law, to address and combat such


incidents;

incidents

The reference is to Fitna, the 15 minute documentary
by Geert Wilders, the Motoons,
International Burn the Koran Day & International Judge the Koran
Day.   If it is critical of Islam and receives high profile
public attention, it is an incident, according to the OIC.

advocacy & incitement

Words have meanings, but the standard meanings do
not apply when Muslims utter them.  Spoken by Muslims and their
dhimmis, words mean what Muslims want them to mean, not what we expect
them to mean.  Exposing Islam’s advocacy of hatred and incitement
to genocidal violence is, in their double speak, advocacy &
incitement.   Nothing illustrates that fact better than this
Mooning.

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.”

 

Adopting measures to criminalize
incitement to imminent violence based on


religion or belief;

measures to criminalize

Anyone not suffering from cranial-rectal
juxtaposition should recognize that as a demand to outlaw Fitna, the
Motoons and every expression critical of Islam.

March 19, 2012 Posted by | Freedom Of Speech, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regrettable events

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

deliberately meant to

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

defame religions

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

incite

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

hatred

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

discrimination

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

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

violence

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

events that incite hatred

Beirut Embassy bombing

USS Cole bombing

WTC1

WTC2

Beslan Massacre

Mumbai Massacre

London subway bombing

Madrid rail bombing

endanger peaceful coexistence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

number of issues

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

Motoons

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

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

Fitna

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

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

 

incitement

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

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

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

negative stereotyping

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

defamation

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

Also emphasizes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this
may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion
or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defamation of Religions vs Negative Stereotyping: SCIRF Gets It Wrong


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

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

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

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

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

intolerance

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

stereotyping

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

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

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

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

protects individuals

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

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

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

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

education

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

concrete details

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

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

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

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

to strike terror

Allah cast
terror

You are more awful as a fear


victorious with terror

I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast
terror

You are more awful as a fear


victorious with terro

I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast
terror

You are more awful as a fear


victorious with terro

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

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

concrete examples

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

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

Ban Ki-moon also condemned Fitna.

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

 

incitement ?

Fitna

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

Motoons

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

Quran burning

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

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

Ihsanoglu’s jaundiced view

 

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

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

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

 

legal foundation

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

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

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

Shari’ah

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

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

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

OIC: United Stand Against Intolerance ?


OIC: United Stand Against Intolerance ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]And if they say so,
pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and
property will be sacred
to us and we will not interfere with
them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah[…] [Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387]

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

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

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




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




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




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



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




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




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



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




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




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




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



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




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




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




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




###

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

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

Copyright permission is granted for publication.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

* fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism:
i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will
all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. [8:39]

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

 

 

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

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

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

BBC
News informs us that Pakistan demanded prosecution.

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

Wikipedia helps us to review the UN position.

 

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

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

 

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

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

    -7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

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

    O11.5

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

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

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

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

    -4- must keep to the side of
    the stree
    t;

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

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

    -7- and are forbidden to build new
    churches
    .

    O11.6

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

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

    O11.7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    6. Calls upon all States:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton: Traitor; Collaborating With the Enemy


From IINA comes notice on August 1 that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to host coordination meetings with the OIC on how to implement HRC Resolution 16/18 “on combating defamation of religions, and how to prevent stereotypes depicting religions and their followers; as well as disseminating religious tolerance”.

This quote from the P.R. is crucial.

According to informed sources in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the two sides, in addition to other European parties, will hold a number of specialized meetings of experts in law and religion in order to finalize the legal aspect on how to better implement the UN resolution.

Does anyone remember how the promotion of the resolution claimed that the “defamation concept” was deprecated in favor of “negative stereotyping” so that freedom of expression is not threatened by the resolution?

Methodologies supposedly include education (indoctrination) controverting speech and “inter-religious dialog”.  So why involve legal experts?  Whence comes the need or mandate for legislation?

How could any such legislation possibly be squared with the First Amendment?   The next paragraph reinforces its predecessor, pay careful attention:

The sources said that the upcoming meetings aim at developing a legal basis for the UN Human Rights Council’s resolution which help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.
  • enacting domestic laws
  • formulating international laws
    • preventing
      • inciting hatred
        • continued defamation of religions

How is it possible create a justiciable  definition of “defamation of religions” ?  Why in Hell is anyone seriously considering the matter?   Religions are not subject to proof, they are matters of faith.  Either you believe or you don’t. Its your choice, and everyone else has the same choice.  If others have differing opinions of your personal superstition and express them, what harm is done? Is your faith so weak that it can not withstand questioning?

Geert Wilders truthfully illustrated the nexus between Islamic doctrine expressed in the Qur’an and exemplified in the hadith with modern examples of rabble rousing, mob violence & terrorism.  His documentary was condemned as “hate speech” and “incitement to violence”. He was tried twice and acquitted.  Wilders did not incite mob violence, Imams did at Jumah Salat. The riots happened after Friday prayer services; no coincidence.

Had Hitler claimed divine revelation and founded a pseudo religion, Churchill could have been brought up on charges of defamation for criticizing Hitler’s cult.   That is exactly what Moe did 1400 years ago.  When poets criticized him in verse, Moe had them murdered.  Such a nice man. How great a role model. In the last decade of his life, Moe started a battle on the average of every six weeks.  How peaceful!

Moe married the six year old daughter of his best friend; she was still playing with dolls three years later when he consummated the marriage.  There areseveral muttawir ahadith describing her age, another gives it as seven.   Exposing these facts is condemned as “hate speech”.

Moe commanded the Muslims to wage perpetual war culminating in global conquest; until only Allah is worshiped and Jews & Christians are subjugated and submit to annual extortion. Moe raided one local Jewish settlement, killing all the men and adolescent boys after they surrendered. Exposing these facts is condemned as “inciting violence”.

No! !!!   Hate speech is telling Allah 17 times per day why he should burn us. “1:6. Guide us to the Straight Way  1:7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).  ”

Hate speech is cursing us: “2:161. Verily, those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers, it is they on whom is the Curse of Allâh and of the angels and of mankind, combined. ”

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

Incitement to violence is: “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.

Incitement to violence is: “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.

Incitement to violence is threatening eternal damnation for shirking and promising eternity in the celestial whore house for participating in violence: “9:38. O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allâh (i.e. Jihâd) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.
9:39. If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allâh is Able to do all things. ”

61:11.  That you believe in Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know!  61:12. (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of ‘Adn ­ Eternity [‘Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.

What do you call a cult whose demon demands great slaughter as the price of admission to paradise?  What do you call a cult that promises rewards for any step taken to injure or enrage disbelievers?

I have not engaged in hate speech neither have I engaged in incitement to violence.; I have described and documented them.  Not “radicalism”; not “extremism”; that is standard, off the shelf, mainstream Islam, violent by design because Moe got his income from plundering his victims.    Like it or not, that is the fatal fact. If you doubt it, you can find full documentation here: Islam’s Mercenary Mission.

    OIC Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, was quoted thusly:

He added that the reports of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory for the years 2009 and 2010 had included several warnings about an organized political form which the extreme right may transform into through its parties’ legislation.


    They want to make it illegal to organize parties  and campaign on anti-Islamic platforms.   Their apologists are already bitching bitterly about statements made by Gingrich, West, Cain and other candidates.

Read between the lines, see what they are really doing, wake up, wise up and rise up.  The traitors who do Islam’s bidding must be removed from power in the next election cycle.  Those who are weak kneed,. and lack the courage to speak out must be removed with them and replaced by true patriots. Collaborating with the enemy is not acceptable!

August 4, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton’s big lie: Combating Discrimination…


Our secretary of State, SCIRI and Human Rights First are prancing about with excrement faced grins, chortling over their great victory, how they put one over on the OIC and defeated a resolution inimical to our right of free expression.

No, we have no victory; we have a defeat, engineered by those sworn to protect us. Instead, they bent down, lifted Satan’s tail and planted a big wet kiss.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 24, 2011

Adoption of Resolution at Human Rights Council Combating Discrimination and Violence


The United States welcomes today’s action by the UN Human Rights Council to further the international community’s efforts to combat religious intolerance. The consensus resolution adopted by the Council today represents a significant step forward in the global dialogue on countering intolerance, discrimination, and violence against persons based upon religion or belief. We appreciate the leadership shown by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and member states on today’s landmark achievement.

The United States strongly supports today’s resolution, which rejects the broad prohibitions on speech called for in the former “defamation of religions” resolution, and supports approaches that do not limit freedom of expression or infringe on the freedom of religion. This resolution demonstrates a desire to move the debate on these shared challenges in a constructive and affirmative direction. Our divides can be bridged through an effort to listen to each other and to seek common ground. This resolution is a direct result of this type of engagement with the global community.

Today’s adoption of this resolution by the UN Human Rights Council is an important statement that must be followed by sustained commitment. At a time when violence and discrimination against members of religious minorities is all too common, we urge the international community to continue to uphold the freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As I said last month in Geneva, we must support those who are willing to stand up on behalf of the rights we cherish.

 

religious intolerance

3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

3:118. O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitânah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand.

Please show me exactly how the resolution combats that; post relevant, verifiable facts in the comments.

discrimination

O11.5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

Please show me exactly how the resolution reduces discrimination against Jews & Christians living under the heel of Islam in Pakistan & Egypt.  Who shall enforce it and how?

violence against persons

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.

9:123. 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).

Please show me exactly how the resolution combats Allah’s jihad imperatives. Does it repeal Allah’s words? Who will enforce it, and how?

landmark achievement

Instead of having an honest debate and roll call vote which would probably reflect diminished support for the “defamation of Islam” construct, you accepted a dishonest “compromise” which altered the language without changing the meaning and effect of the resolution.

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,

Kindly elaborate on the positive role of free expression in combating intolerance. Under the first amendment, I have a right to truthfully write and publish the fact that Islam snctifies rape, pillage & plunder in the process of world conquest. The Secretary General of the resolution’s sponsor will tell you that my truthful expression defames Islam and negatively stereotypes Muslims and that you must pass laws to prohibit it.

When Geert Wilders uttered & published the same fatal fact in his short documentary, Fitna, Ban Ki-moon declared it to be “hate speech” & “incitement of violence”, not involving the right of free expression.

If the general public knew the full truth about Islam, they wound not tolerate it. Truthful expression about Islam militates against tolerance of the intolerable.  The intent of the paragraph quoted above is to stifle free expression, not encourage it.

in addition to the negative projection of the followers of religions

That excerpt, properly viewed, reveals a great deal.  What is uttered about  the  war cult reflects on its membership, jointly and severally.  If Islam  mandates genocidal conquest, then what of Muslims?  Perhaps  the Qur’an will enlighten you.

9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh’s Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh’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 Allâh, 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, Allâh wastes not the reward of the Muhsinûn

Believers fight in Allah’s cause (world conquest) killing and being killed. Any step they take to enrage or injure a disbeliever is imputed to them as a good deed.  We can not expose the evil at the core of Islam without exposing Muslims as the agents of Satan who do and applaud evil acts.

Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or beliefs, 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;

Exactly what are they complaining about?  I highlighted the crucial clauses, read it again, read it repeatedly until it sinks in.  They express  deep concern about  “creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups”.  To fully comprehend the enormity of the resolution, you need to recall a boiler plate  expression from previous resolutions: “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with terrorism and human rights violations.”  Does that ring a bell?  Can you connect the dots?

  • negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion
  • creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups

Those arrogant, condescending Muslims, bureaucrats & politicians are convinced that we are too stupid to comprehend the big lie they are putting over on us.

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

 

  • incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence
  • negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of religion or belief
  • advocacy of religious hatred
    • constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence
  • urges States to take effective measures

“Religious intolerance” is a code phrase for criticism of Islam; “negative stereotyping…” is a parallel  code phrase. “Advocacy of religious hatred” is another. “Incitement  to discrimination, hostility or violence” is gilding the turd. “Effective measures” is a code phrase for prohibitive legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

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

Recall what they said about Fitna and the Motoons. Recall what they said and are saying about burning the Qur’an.  It is not possible to tell the truth about Islam without violating their resolution.

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

Recall what the Secretary General  of the United Nations said about Fitna. Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

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

By the U.N.’s own definition of terms, exemplified by the Secretary General, the resolution demands that revelation of facts about Islam be criminalized. There is no real, effective difference between the stated offenses:

  • defamation of Islam
  • denigration of Islam
  • vilification of Islam
  • negative stereotyping of Islam
  • negative stereotyping of individuals based on religion.

The primary demand was and remains the criminalization of all criticism and questioning of the doctrines & practices of Islam.

March 25, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization


Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization

This three page draft resolution is dated 03/21/11, considerably post
deadline. The database shows it as being submitted on the 18th, one day
late.

Despite its length and due to the target rich environment it presents,
I reproduce the entire draft resolution, with superscripts linked to my
commentary which follows the text of the draft.    To
read my comments in coordination with the text,
click the superscript and use your back button to return to the text.

Article 19 & CHRS have published a call for member states to vote for this resolution.
The resolution represents a change of tactics, not strategic
objectives. It is designed to deceive human rights activists, and it
appears to be a success.

It is probable that the resolution will be debated
and adopted Thursday or Friday of this week, too soon to mount an
effective opposition. This blog post will stand as a model for rebuttal
when the resolution is repeated next year.  Please follow the
links and take maximum advantage of the information provided.

A/HRC/16/L.38

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization

of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence

against persons based on religion or belief

Human Rights Council

Sixteenth session

Agenda item 9

Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related

form of intolerance, follow-up and implementation

of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference):
draft resolution 16/…

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization

of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence

against persons based on religion or belief1

The Human Rights Council,

Reaffirming the commitment made by all States under the Charter of the
United

Nations to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance
of all human rights

and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to, inter alia,
religion or belief,

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,

Reaffirming further that the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights

provides, inter alia, that everyone shall have the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and

religion or belief, which shall include freedom to have or to adopt a
religion or belief of his

choice2, and
freedom, either individually or in community with others
and in public or

private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance,
practice3
and teaching,

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,4

Deeply concerned about incidents of intolerance5,
discrimination6
and
violence

against persons based on their religion7 or belief in all regions of the
world,

Deploring any advocacy of discrimination or violence on the basis of
religion or

belief,8

Strongly deploring all acts of violence against persons on the basis of
their religion

or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their homes,
businesses, properties,

schools, cultural centres or places of worship,9

Concerned about actions that willfully exploit tensions or target
individuals on the

basis of their religion or belief,

Noting with deep concern the instances of intolerance, discrimination
and acts of

violence in many parts of the world, including cases motivated by
discrimination against

persons belonging to religious minorities, in addition to the negative
projection of the

followers of religions and the enforcement of measures that
specifically discriminate

against persons on the basis of religion or belief,

Recognizing the valuable contribution of people of all religions or
beliefs to

humanity and the contribution that dialogue among religious groups can
make towards

improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all
humankind,

Recognizing also that working together to enhance implementation of
existing legal

regimes that protect individuals against discrimination and hate
crimes, increase interfaith

and intercultural efforts, and to expand human rights education are
important first steps in

combating incidents of intolerance, discrimination and violence against
individuals on the

basis of religion or belief,

 

1. Expresses deep concern at the
continued serious instances of derogatory

stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization10 of
persons based on
their religion or

beliefs, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist
organizations and groups11

aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious
groups, in particular

when condoned by Governments;

 

2. Expresses its concern that incidents
of religious intolerance, discrimination

and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of
individuals on the basis of

religion or belief continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in
this context, any

advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes
incitement to

discrimination, hostility or violence12, and urges States to take
effective measures, as set forth

in this resolution, consistent with their obligations under
international human rights law, to

address and combat such incidents;13

 

3. Condemns any advocacy of religious
hatred that constitutes incitement to

discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of
print, audio-visual or

electronic media or any other means;12

 

4. Recognizes that the open public
debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and

intercultural dialogue at the local, national and international levels
can be among the best

protections against religious intolerance, and can play a positive role
in strengthening

democracy and combating religious hatred, and convinced that a
continuing dialogue on

these issues can help overcome existing misperceptions;14

 

5. Notes the speech given by
Secretary-General of the Organization of the

Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, at the fifteenth session of
the Human Rights

Council, and draws on his call on States to take the following actions
to foster a domestic

environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect, by:
 

(a) Encouraging the creation of
collaborative networks to build mutual

understanding, promoting dialogue and inspiring constructive action
towards shared policy

goals and the pursuit of tangible outcomes, such as servicing projects
in the fields of

education, health, conflict prevention, employment, integration and
media education;

(b) Creating an appropriate mechanism within the government to, inter
alia,

identify and address potential areas of tension between members of
different religious

communities, and assisting with conflict prevention and mediation;

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

(d) Encouraging efforts of leaders to discuss within their communities
causes of

discrimination and evolving strategies to counter these causes;

(e) Speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious
hatred that

constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;

(f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence
based on

religion or belief;15

(g) Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious

stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by
strategizing and

harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international
levels through, inter

alia, education16
and awareness-building;

(h) Recognizing that the open, constructive and respectful debate of
ideas, as

well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national
and international levels,

can play a positive role in combating religious hatred, incitement and
violence;

6. Calls upon all States:

(a) To take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries in
the conduct

of their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the
basis of religion or

belief;

(b) To foster religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability
of

members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to
contribute openly

and on an equal footing to the society;

(c) To encourage representation and meaningful participation of
individuals,

irrespective of their religion, in all sectors of society;

(d) To undertake a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which
is

understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in
conducting questionings,

searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures;17

7. Encourages States to consider providing updates on efforts made in
this

regard as part of ongoing reporting to the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner

for Human Rights;

8. Calls upon States to adopt measures and policies to promote the full
respect

and protection for places of worship and religious sites, cemeteries
and shrines, and to take

measures in cases where they are vulnerable to vandalism or destruction;

9. Calls for strengthened international efforts to foster a global
dialogue for the

promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on
respect for human

rights and diversity of religions and beliefs, and decides to convene a
panel discussion on

this issue at its seventeenth session within existing resources


  1. This sentence contains the main change: from combating
    defamation of Islam to Muslims; from the institution to its members.
    That is a change in tactics, not strategic
    objective.  The goal remains unchanged: to erect a legislative
    shield to protect Islam from all questioning and criticism, consistent
    with Shari’ah, which prescribes the death penaltyA for
    ‘reviling’ Allah, Moe & their war cult. B
    Muslims are supposed to be stigmatized individually by accurately
    describing the accursed doctrines of the war cult which enslaves them
    to Satan.  Thus, every exposure,questioning & criticism of
    Islamic doctrines will be held to ‘stigmatize’ Muslims, an act to be
    prohibited by law.

    ‘Incitement’ will be defined broadly, as in Ban
    Ki-moon’s condemnationC
    of Geert Wilders’ short documentary, Fitna, which exposes, but does not
    constitute incitement to violence. The MotoonsD a graphic
    depiction of Islamic jihad-terrorism also exposed incitemenht, but are
    themselves, not an example of incitement.

  2. ICCPR,
    Article 18,
    ¶2
    implies, but does not clearly state, the right to disaffiliate from one
    religion and adopt another. International consensus on that right is
    impossible because Islam prescribes the death penalty for apostasy.
    Refer to the relevant Islamic law.A
  3. Manifestation & practice of Islam is
    problematic because participation in offensive wars of conquestE is ordained
    for MuslimsF
    and is their essential life missionG.  Islam is inseverable, Muslims
    are not empowered to select what they like and reject the violent parts.H It
    is not possible to practice Islam peacefully in the long run.
  4. “Combating religious intolerance” is
    assumed to be a good thing. Why should anyone tolerate a ‘religion’
    that asserts a demonic mandate–right & duty to conquer him and
    enslave his widow & orphansI?
    Why
    should anyone tolerate a ‘religion’ that imputes any step taken to
    “injure” or “raise the anger of” a disbeliever to the believer’s credit
    as a “deed
    of righteousness”J?

    The citation of the right to freedom of
    expression is deliberately
    deceptive because the intent of this resolution is to criminalize any
    and every expression that questions or criticizes the doctrines &
    practices of Islam.  How, exactly, will freedom of expression
    combat
    intolerance?  The unstated premise of this and all similar
    resolutions,
    including the preceding resolutions “combating defamation of religions”
    is that all questioning & criticism of Islam constitutes
    incitement, intolerance & hate speech.

  5. Muslims are so “deeply concerned” about ‘intolerance”
    that its holy scripture declares it intensely intolerant of all rival
    religions so that if anyone chooses another religion, “it will never be
    accepted of him”K.
  6. Muslims are so “deeply concerned” about ‘discrimination’
    that their Shari’ah dictates that conquered Christians living under
    Islamic domination are prohibited from making public processions,
    prayers or funerals, ringing bells, displaying crosses and building
    churches.L
  7. Muslims are so “deeply concerned” about violence
    based on the victim’s religion that their holy scripture , oral
    tradition & Shari’ah mandate & exemplify offensive wars of
    conquest against pagans, Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians.M
  8. How can you be a Muslim while deploring
    Islam? This is the Acme of hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance! M

  9. If you deplore the burning of homes &
    churches and
    the killing of Christians & other minorities in Nigeria,
    Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia & Egypt, why do you remain
    affiliated with the war cult that inculcates hatred and incites those
    acts?
  10. Deep concern about “derogatory stereotyping,
    negative profiling and stigmatization”? Are you concerned about your
    own scripture and Shari’ah? N
  11. They are complaining about the Dutch PVV and
    similar political parties in Austria, Germany Switzerland and
    elsewhere. They want such parties outlawed.
  12. They just condemned Islam’s own canon of
    scripture, tradition, biography & jurisprudence!
  13. That is a demand for legislation
    outlawing “negative stereotyping’, which translates to all questioning
    and criticism of Islamic doctrines and practices, including this blog
    post informing you about their outrageous arrogant demands.
  14. If the interlocutors had sufficient knowledge of Islamic doctrine
    and courage to expose it, such dialogue might disabuse a few people of
    the mis-perception that Islam is the
    “religion of peace”.
  15. This is derived from the boilerplate
    demands for criminalization of ‘defamation of Islam’. It encompasses
    all negative expression about Islam. Review the exemplary statement by
    Ban Ki-moon quoted below.C
  16. They demand that we convert our schools into Islamic indoctrination centers, a process that is
    already  underway.
  17. Consider the most recent mass casualty
    attacks, both successful and interdicted. What was the affiliation of
    the perpetrators? How many of them were not Muslims?  Islam
    inculcates hatred and incites violence. It promises participants
    admission to a celestial bordelloO and threatens shirkers with
    eternity in HellP.
    Muslims are commanded to wage war against us and rewarded for any
    injury they inflict.  Of course it is unreasonable to be
    suspicious of them. Yeah, right.

  1. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 8, ¶1.
  2. ibid, Book O, Chapter 8, ¶7.
  3. 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.”

  4. View the Motoons
  5. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, ¶0 pg. 617

    ibid, ¶1, pg. 618

    ivid, ¶8, pg. 620

    Al-Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1, pg. 141

  6. Noble Qur’an, Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 216.
  7. ibid, Surah
    At-Taubah,
    ayah 111
  8. ibid,Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 85
  9. ibid, Surah Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah 26

    Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, ¶13

  10. Noble Qur’an, Surah At-Taubah, Ayah 120
  11. ibid, Surah Al-Imran , Aya 85
  12. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 11 , ¶5
  13. Noble Qur’an, Surah Al-Anfal, Ayah 39

    ibid, Surah At-Taubah, Ayah 29

    Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387

    Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, ¶8

  14. Noble Qur’an, Surah Al-Baiyyinah, Ayah 6

    Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 11, ¶5,
    items 2-7

  15. Noble Qur’an, Surah As-Saff, Ayat 10-12

    ibid, Surah Surah An-Naba’ , Ayah 31

  16. Ibid, Surah At-Taubah, Ayat 38-39

    ibid, Surah an-Naba’, Ayah 21

 

March 23, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, Religion, Religion of Peace, United Nations | , , , , , | 1 Comment

%d bloggers like this: