Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Defamation of Religions 2010


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

wrongly associated with terrorism

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

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

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

These quotes come from devoted followers, not from enemies.

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

Which one do you believe?

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

Which one do you believe?

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

Which one do you believe?

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

Which one do you believe?

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

Which one do you believe?

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

Which one do you believe?

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

Which one do you believe?

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

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

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

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

Which one do you believe?

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

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

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

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

Which one do you believe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ad Hoc Committee Leaves Work Unfinished


UN Watch published, in their blog, links to two apparently recent proposals for the protocol to be added to ICERD by the Ad Hoc Cmte. for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. [The pdf  files contained scanned images, not text, so OCR was required. The format will not be an exact match and there may be errors I failed to spot. ] [Emphasis added.]

Provisions of these  proposals are in dispute.  It appears that the committee has been bogged down in procedural matters & disputes so that our freedom of expression may be safe for a few months at least, until their next session.

Proposals by Pakistan on behalf of OIC

1. State Parties States shall prohibit any propaganda, practice, or organisation aimed at justifying or encouraging any form of racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination targeting people of particular groups, such as religious groups, refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, stateless individuals, migrants and migrant workers, communities based on descent, such as people of African descent, indigenous people, minorities and people under foreign occupation.

2. State Parties shall immediately undertake to adopt positive measures designed to eliminate all incitement to racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination in and, to this end, shall commit themselves, inter alia:

  1. to declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas aimed at racial,  ethnic, national and religious       discrimination or hatred, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any particular group of persons;
  2. to declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda  activities, which encourage and incite racial hatred or discrimination, and shall declare participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;
  3. not to permit national or local public authorities incite racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discriininationg,
  4. not to permit political parties incite racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination. .
  5. to strengthen their legislations or adopt necessary legal provisions to prohibit and suppress racist and xenophobic platforms and to discourage the integration of political parties who promote such platforms in govermnent alliances in order to legitimising the implementation of these platforms.


3. States Parties shall, in accordance with the human rights standards, declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form.

4. States Parties shall promulgate, where they do not exist, a specific legislation prohibiting any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

To decode the substance of the highlighted expressions, we must keep one linguistic abuse constantly in mind:

4.  Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;

That boilerplate from the Durban II Preliminary Document conflates criticism of Islam with racism. Consequently, references to racism in subsequent documents must be read more broadly.

What constitutes incitement to religious hatred?  In effect, any negative expression regarding Islam. This fact becomes clear when we examine the documents  behind previous resolutions: Fitna & the Danish Cartoons. The Secretary General made the matter abundantly clear.

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, a documentary juxtaposing verses from the Qur’an and the ravings of Imams with riots in the Arab street constitutes hate speech and incitement.  Geert Wilders proved that the Qur’an  inculcates hatred and  preaching it incites violence. That is truth, not hate speech!  The obvious intention and effect is to make all criticism of Islam a criminal offense.

ICCPR

Article 20

  1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
  2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

If Article 20 of ICCPR was enforced, the Qur’an would have to be outlawed as propaganda for war and advocacy of religious hatred inciting violence.

It is likely that the OIC’s proposal will be included, along with boilerplate from previous resolutions, in the anticipated Defamation of Religions resolution.  The Nigerian proposal differs: it omits provisions 3 & 4.

Compare the OIC’s proposal to Article 4 of the Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document. See also my analysis of  the Pakistan/OIC submission made last spring.

October 30, 2009 Posted by | United Nations | , , , , , , | 5 Comments

   

%d bloggers like this: