Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

International Judge Muhammad Day Update: the Videos and Sources

Pastor Terry Jones wants us to study the life of

Muhammad; to discover his character and that of the cult he
founded.  He mentions the hadith and Quran but does not tell us
where to find them.  He summarizes two horrific accounts of murder
not included in the easily accessible hadith collections.  I have
embedded the three videos below, included my  raw notes taken as I
watched the videos, and will provide a list of links to source texts.

This blog post and the videos embedded below are not
hate speech. They are not incitement to violence.  They are
educational.  Pastors Jones & Sapp are passionate opponents of
Islam because they recognize its evil mission and methods.  You
will, too, after reading the following resources.

In this somewhat rambling video, Pastors Jones &
Sapp describe Moe’s childhood, youth and first marriage.  They
inform us that Moe suffered from epilepsy and depression; and  was
suicidal.  That much is true according to hadiths and

Pastor Jones claims that Moe’s father died when Moe
was five years old.  According to the sources I have read,
Abdullah died before Moe was born,.  Some say about six months,
others claim that he died several years before Moe’s birth.
Pastors Jones & Sapp seem to imply that Moe was a jinx, I think
that is carrying things too far; there is no evidence that he had
anything to do with the demise of his older relatives.

They say that Islam is “of the devil”. I agree that
it is demonic, it sure as Hell is not divine!  The Qur’an, hadith
& Sira won’t tell you that directly, you must read between the
lines and do some logical analysis.   It sure ain’t divine unless
the Almighty Creator desires “great
” .

Moe charged with promotion of murder; destruction of people and
property through the Qur’an.

Moe lacks the lifestyle & character of a Prophet of God.

Qur’an commands war. “Cleanse Arabia of Christians & Jews.

Violation of Women’s rights.  Violence against

Violence against Infidels: 370,000,000
victims.  1.6B led astray; going to Hell.  According to Bill Warner, the estimate is 270 million; I think
Jones made an error.

60M Hindus  killed.

Circumstances of infancy and youth: can only turn out bad.

Declares source: Qur’an & hadith.

Mother thought he was possessed?

Father died at 5, Mother at 6?

Wayne Sap implied that Moe’s demon possession was related to the
familial mortality.

Married older woman.  25/40.

“Religion of Peace” but attacked our Embassy. Talks peace but does not
live it.  No freedom of religion or speech.

Totally broke when Khdija died?  [Moe was feeding an army.]

Ran to wife from the cave and whined .

Tried suicide?

Qur’an was inspired by Satan.   Wive convinced Moe his
visitation was angelic, not demonic.

Description of revelations are accurate.

Advises to read books but does not name them.

PBUH  because he never had peace”

Cursed foes and those who rejected Islam.

Satanic verses mentioned.

Second part: character and relationships to be discussed.

Part two has them preaching Jesus, contrasting him with Moe.

Pastor Sapp says Moe did not know whose voice he heard. At first
contact, that was true, but his wife convinced him it was an angel, not
a devil. After that, Moe claimed it was the angel Jibril.

Discussion ensues of gold digging; wasting his wife’s

Says Moe changes from weirdo to pervert.  Segue to marriage to
Aisha.  According to the hadith, Sira & Tahrik, he really did
marry a six year old girl.

Condemns lack of outrage over abortion and enslavement to Islam.

First mention of situational scripture in relation
to marriage to Aisha.  “Muhammad was special.”

Next comes the Miraj. “Fairy tale city.”… Likens
it to Harry potter.  Questions sanity and intellectual capacity of

Shown Heaven & Hell, should have stayed there;
is there now. Calls Moe: liar, deceiver & pervert.

Describes negotiation over compulsory salat.

Discusses the move to Medina, called it Mekkah by
mistake.  Tosses in Islamic deception.

Discusses  violence which escalates with the
number of Muslims.

Discussion of Islamic supremacism lacks clarity, but
is valid.

9/11 was a wake up call.

Islam hates Jews.  “Kill any Jew that falls
into your power.”, quoting Moe.  Why does Jones not cite 7:167
& Sahih Muslim 41.6985?

[34:46]  Discusses “Innocence of Muslims” and
the rioting: the violence is intrinsic.

The murder of a critic: “Who will rid me of this
woman”. Slams doll representing Moe face down on desk.

Contrasts Jesus and Moe.   Described murder of one eyed

Launched 78 raids in his last decade.

Mentions that Moe got his income by his sword.  In the texts, its
by his spear.  Big difference.

Describes the murder of Um Qirfa. But does not
mention the central detail of the murder immediately He eventually gets
around to it.

Asks why Moe would torture someone like that, answers because he had
reached the highest realm of sickness.  But that is error: Moe did
that to bolster his barbarian image in order to terrify potential
victims into submitting without a fight.  Sapp alludes to it

Cites 5:33, which is not absolutely clear on the
face of the text; needs the help of tafsir for clarification.

“Religion of thievery.” Discusses Moe’s genocide of
a Jewish tribe.

Found Moe guilty: declared execution of judgment on
Moe and the Qur’an and intention to show the trailer of “Innocence of
Muslims”.  Askes viewers to carefully examine the life of

being false prophet; leading astray

2.promoting murder, rape and destruction through the Koran

3. Violations against women, minorities and Christians leading to 370M

Will execute Moe and the Qur’an.

Ignites Koran and doll representing Moe. .

September 14, 2012 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Qur’an Burning; Idiot’s Attitude: Respect for Islam

The video has disappeared from the AP article at Yahoo News. It is still available at the N.Y. Times.  48 seconds into the video,
general John Allen , Cmdr of Nato forces:

“I assure you, I promise you, this
was not intentional in any way and I
offer my sincere apology for any offense this may have caused.”

The article quotes the White House spokesman thusly.

 says it was a “deeply unfortunate

that does not
reflect the respect the U.S. military has for the religious practices
of the Afghans.

I highlighted one clause that appears in other articles, but not within
quotes. I do not know whether Carney uttered or implied the sentiment
expressed in the highlighted clause.

From Reliefweb,
we learn of a U.N. statement expressing the same “respect”, describing
remarks by SRSG

stressed that the
United Nations deeply respects the Islamic faith, traditions and
culture of the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan.

From CBSNEWS we learn that a military source said that
the Qur’ans were removed from the prison library because they “contained
extremist messages or inscriptions”.  The implication is that
prisoners had made marginal notes. Exactly what was in those notes?
Were they operational or motivational messages?

How would operational notes get out of the prison to
those who would implement them?  What is the difference between
motivational messages and the Qur’an, which exhorts Muslims to conquer
the world?  If we don’t want them to have access to incitement to
violence, then they should not have been given access to Qur’ans,
hadith, tafsir  & jurisprudence or the writings of Maududi,
Qutb, Al-Banna or Azam.   Is there any limit to the stupidity
& hypocrisy of our traitors?

Yeah, General, Taliban are sure to believe that
Qur’ans were collected, removed and sent to the garbage pile purely by
accident, without intent to destroy them.  We did not want the
prisoners to use them, the books are not in our language, and we did
not want the marginal notes to get out, so we disposed of the,
permanently.  You placed yourself in a bad position: you are
either incompetent or a liar.  Which is it, or  are you

Removing the Qur’ans is not your error. Burning them
is not your mistake. Doing it in public, within  sight of the
enemy is a fatal mistake which has led to a dozen deaths and will
probably cause more death and suffering.  Next time, incinerate
the crap privately, in a proper facility and don’t advertise it.

Do any of those involved, including the White House,
Department of Defense, Department of State and United Nations
comprehend the plain meaning of words?  They said that they “respect Islam“.
Three classes of people “respect Islam”: ignoramuses, damned fools and
Muslims. Unfortunately, those classes are not mutually exclusive.

If you can respect a mercenary
war cult
whose doctrines sanctify genocidal
& slavery, then you have a terrible mental or moral
defect sufficient to warrant your removal from the gene pool of the
human race and from high office.

Islam is not incidental to the Accursed Abomination
and its aftermath; it is the central issue.  Allah’s damnable imperatives,
promises and threats which motivated the Magnificent Nineteen
to slaughter 3000 innocent people, are at the core of the
problem.  It is not possible to remove and permanently
exclude  Afghanistan from membership in the set of terror
sponsoring states without first removing Islam; Allah’s yoke of slavery
from the souls and necks of the people of Afghanistan and their
regime.  So long as they remain Muslim, all the blood and treasure
we have expended there are wasted, sacrificed to the demon of political

Brigadier General S.K. Malik gave us the key to
victory in page sixty of “The
Quran’ic Concept of War
but our leaders are traitors,
unwilling to seize the key, insert it in the lock and turn it.
Pay particular attention to the sentences I have emphasized in this
crucial quote.

Terror cannot be struck into the
hearts of an army by merely

 cutting its lines of
communication or depriving it of its routes

of withdrawal. It is
basically related to the strength or weakness

of the human soul. It
can be instilled only if the opponent’s

is destroyed.

Psychological dislocation is temporary;

dislocation is permanent
Psychological dislocation can be

produced by a physical act
but this does not hold good of the

spiritual dislocation. To
instill terror into the hearts of the enemy, 

is essential. in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his Faith
. An

invincible Faith is immune to
terror. A weak Faith offers inroads

to terror. The
Faith conferred upon us by the Holy Qur’an has

inherent strength to ward off terror from us and to enable

to strike terror into the enemy.
Whatever the form or type of

strategy directed against the
enemy, it must, in order to be effective,

be capable of striking terror
into the hearts of the enemy. A strategy

that fails to attain this
condition suffers from inherent drawbacks

and weaknesses; and should be
reviewed and modified. This rule

is fully applicable to
nuclear as well as conventional wars. It is

equally true of the strategy
of nuclear deterrence in fashion

today. To be credible and
effective, the strategy of deterrence

must be capable of striking
terror into the hearts of the enemy.

we do not destroy Islam, nuking Afghanistan & Pakistan is our only
hope of victory: there will be no alternative to complete
extermination. The people of those enslaved nations must be made to
comprehend the fact that Allah is an impotent idol whose threat and
promise are vain.  They must throw off Islam’s yoke of slavery or
they must be exterminated.  Emancipation is morally superior to
extermination.  We needed to get started eleven years ago.

February 23, 2012 Posted by | Afghanistan, GWOT, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

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.


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.


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.


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

You are more awful as a fear

victorious with terror

I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast

You are more awful as a fear

victorious with terro

I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast

You are more awful as a fear

victorious with terro

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

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 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.


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.[]

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? []

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.


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: Playing the Victim Card – Qur’an Burning

OIC: Playing the Victim Card- Qur’an Burning

The OIC propaganda machine grinds on. I accept their machinations as an
opportunity to expose their al-Taqiyya.  They held an emergency
meeting after International Judge the Qur’an Day.  The primary
output of that meeting was a letter to Secretary General Ban

The letter is reproduced below. Due to the target
rich environment, I once again resort to footnoting.  The
footnotes are linked to my commentary which follows below the
horizontal line. Clicking a superscript will bring the comment into
view.  After reading my comment, press the Back Space key to
return to your place in the text.


General Assembly

Security Council

Sixty-fifth session


Agenda item 68 (b)

Promotion and protection of human rights: human

rights questions, including alternative approaches for

improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and

fundamental freedoms


Letter dated 29 March 2011 from the Permanent Representative of
Tajikistan to the United Nations addressed to the

On behalf of the Ambassadorial Group of the
Organization of the Islamic

Conference in New York, I have the honour to convey that the Group held

emergency meeting on Friday, 25 March 2011, to discuss the despicable
act of the

burning of a copy of the Holy Koran1 by two pastors, following
a mock trial in a

church on 20 March 2011 in Florida, United States of America.

This provocative act2, which has hurt the sentiments of
the 1.5 billion Muslims

of the world, was strongly condemned by the OIC Group as an act of
advocacy of

incitement to religious hatred3, discrimination and violence4 against
Islam and

Muslims. The OIC Ambassadors urged the international community in
general and

you in particular to openly and strongly condemn this act of extreme

religious hatred.6

I am enclosing the text of the statement issued by
the OIC Ambassadorial

Group in New York on this subject, with a request for circulation to
the entire

United Nations membership (see annex).

As you will see in the statement, the OIC
Ambassadorial Group called upon

you, as well as reiterated the call made by the OIC Group in Geneva to
the High

Commissioner for Human Rights, to express unequivocal condemnation of

insidious desecration of the holy book7 of Islam and show action-oriented

to tackle the growing manifestations of religious intolerance and
discrimination and

incitement to hatred and violence9 based on religion.

The OIC Group strongly believes that the United
Nations has an important role

to play in ensuring peace and harmony among the peoples and nations of
the world10.

Accordingly, in your capacity as the Secretary-General of the United
Nations, we

expect you to take the necessary steps to fight such insidious
tendencies, to protect

multiculturalism and promote peace and harmony that are fundamental to

peaceful coexistence of mankind11.

I should be grateful if you would have the present
letter and its annex

circulated as a document of the sixty-fifth session of the General
Assembly, under

agenda item 68 (b), and of the Security Council.

(Signed) Sirodjidin Aslov


Permanent Representative

Annex to the letter dated 29
March 2011 from the Permanent
Representative of Tajikistan to
the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General


Group of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference in New York
strongly condemns the
sacrilegious act of burning of the Holy
Koran in Florida as an act of
advocacy of incitement to religious
hatred, discrimination and

25 March 2011

The Ambassadorial Group of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference at the

United Nations, New York, at an emergency meeting convened today,
expressed its

strong condemnation of the despicable act of the burning of a copy of
the Koran by

Pastors Wayne Sapp and Terry Jones in Gainesville, Florida, United
States of

America, on 20 March 2011. Calling it an act of extremists guided by
their hatred

towards other cultures and religions, the OIC Group regretted that it
took place in a

church, a sacred place itself, reserved for prayers and remembrance of

The OIC Group shared the disappointment and concern
expressed by the

Secretary-General of the OIC over this reprehensible act of extreme
bigotry, which

has severely hurt the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims all over the
world, and

cautioned that if necessary conditions were not created by the

community to prevent a recurrence of such Islamophobic acts, it would
have grave

repercussions over interfaith harmony as well as global peace, security
and stability12.

The Group urged the international community to
unanimously condemn these

acts that are clear examples of advocacy of incitement to hatred,
discrimination and

violence based on religion13. It was further highlighted that
such acts, when left

unattended, provide fuel to extremist thoughts and elements in
different societies

that lead to undermining peaceful coexistence and harmony among peoples

societies. While appreciating the condemnatory statement issued by the

States in the general debate of the Human Rights Council on 22 March
2011 and

other statements by interfaith and community leaders in the United
States, the Group

hoped that the United States Administration would take appropriate
actions against

the perpetrators of these acts in accordance with its national and


The OIC Group also called upon the Secretary-General
of the United Nations

and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to express their unequivocal

condemnation of the insidious desecration of the holy book of Islam and

action-oriented leadership to tackle the growing problem of religious

discrimination and incitement to hatred and violence based on religion
and belief.

The Group stated that at a time when Muslims around
the world continue to be

confronted with ever-increasing instances of intolerance, negative

stigmatization, discrimination and violence on the basis of their
religion, the OIC sponsored

resolution adopted by consensus on 24 March 2011 by the Human Rights

Council in Geneva, entitled “Combating intolerance, negative
stereotyping and

stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and
violence against

persons based on religion or belief”, should be seen as the
confirmation of the

sincere commitment16
of OIC to the promotion of a global culture of respect17,

tolerance and peace among all, irrespective of religious and cultural

and traditions.

OIC Ambassadors further reiterated the strong
commitment of OIC to the

promotion of interfaith and intercultural dialogue18 and the
need to preserve the

multicultural fabric of our societies that is fundamental to peaceful

among peoples, cultures and nations.


  1. Pastor Wayne Sapp burned  an English
    translation of the meaning of the Qur’an, which Islam does not consider
    authentic or holy. As man’s word, not Allah’s, was burned,  the
    act was not despicable; no offense was committed.
  2. As a provocation, how does judging and
    burning a Qur’an translation compare to the act of sacking a U.N.
    office, murdering ten people and burning a church?  Is the act
    somehow more provocative than the curse worthy content of the book,
    which cursesI
    Christians and commands Muslims to wage perpetual warII against them?
    The Qur’an was burned precisely because it is a provocative book: it
    inculcates hatred and incites violence
  3. Pastor Terry Jones judged the Qur’an, Pastor Wayne Sapp burned
    it. Exactly how does that constitute “advocacy
    of incitement to religious hatred”? Did they tell their congregants to
    hate Muslims?  Did they pray for the death of Muslims?  They
    simply examined the content of a book and its consequences, judged it
    to be evil and burned it.  The OIC is miscasting the act without
    any objective basis in fact.
  4. What incitement to violence?  What
    violence?  Did the pastors tell their congregation to riot?
    Did they riot?  Did they kill Muslims or destroy Islamic property
    on their way home from the church?
  5. Bigotry: closed minded persistence in false
    opinion in the face of the facts, commonly understood in a racial
    context. What race is Islam?  If Islam is a race, why are there
    Caucasian, African, Arabian\ and Asian, Muslims?   The
    pastors  heard the facts in the form of reading  verses from
    the book and testimony of  its victims.  They acted after
    consideration of  the facts brought out at trial.  How
    is that bigotry?   Did they advocate hatred of or
    discrimination against Muslims?  Did they generalize about
    Muslims?  With what evidence do you  hope to substantiate
    your accusation of  “extreme bigotry”?
  6. What is the object of hatred?  It is
    the damnable doctrines enshrined in the Qur’an, which sanctify &
    mandate genocidalIII
    & terrorismIV.
    Exactly what is wrong with hatred of absolute evil?
  7. How can the profane be desecrated?
    They burned a translation, not an Arabic Qur’an.  Even the Arabic
    Qur’an is profane, not sacred to those who examine it
    objectively.  The Qur’an consists largely of situational scriptureV and
    its mission is mercenaryVI.
  8. Condemnation is verbiage, not action.
    The real demand is for legislation to impose Islam’s blasphemy lawVII on us;
    to make questioning & criticism of Islam punishable by fine and
  9. The usual code word is
    Islamophobia.  Take a look at the March edition of the
    Islamophobia ObservatoryVIII and
    see what they are kvetching about.  They consider the House
    Homeland Security Cmte. hearing into ‘radicalization’ as ‘incitement to
    discrimination… .
  10. The UN was created to maintain
    peace; prevent war. Islam was created to initiate and perpetuate warII,VI. To fulfill
    its mission, the UN must eliminate Islam from the world.
  11. That distills down to: promote surrender
    to Islam. Peace is what pertains after Dar ul-Islam conquers Dar
  12. That distills down to a threat: “silence
    our critics or we will go to war”.
  13. The sentence is redundant
    boilerplate.  The Qur’an was burned precisely because it
    inculcates hatred and incites genocidal violence. They accuse us of
    their own course of conduct (they obey Allah & emulate
  14. The United States is obligated to
    protect the rights of its citizens.  We have a right to truthful
    communication of information, including information about the content
    and consequences of Islam’s damnable scripture. Their demand that Jones
    & Sapp be punished for exercising their first amendment rights is
    parallel to their oft repeated demand that the creators of the Motoons
    & Fitna be punished for communicating the truth about their curse
    worthy war cult.
  15. So, religious intolerance is a
    problem?  Is it really?? The Qur’an defines Islam, and it ain’t
    tolerant!  Islam is extremely intolerant! Allah  says that
    only Islam will be acceptedIX.  Anyone who tries to quit
    Islam is to be killedX.
    Cursing us and mandating war against us are not signs of
    tolerance.  They are demanding that we tolerate the propagation of
    a doctrine which demands that we be conqueredII and declares
    open seasonXI
    on us.
  16. Sincere commitment to tolerance &
    peace? Yeah, right. Egypt, Indonesia & Pakistan are so committed to
    peace & tolerance that they allow Muslims to subject Christians to
    assault, murder, malicious persecution & destruction of property
    with impunity.
  17. Respect is given where respect is due, we
    have to
    earn it; so do you. Islam is unworthy of respect; reasonable men will
    give it none.
  18. If you are so committed to interfaith dialogue,
    why did you not send someone to International Judge the Koran Day to
    act as defense counsel and present evidence to prove that it does not
    inculcate hatred, incite war and institutionalize misogyny?
  1. 2:161, 9:30
  2. 8:39, 9:29, The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They
    give the Jizyah
  3. 8:67, 47:4
  4. 3:1518:12, 8:57, 8:60, 8:60, 59:13, Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220
  9. 3:85
  10. 4:89
  11. Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387

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

Imam Rauf’s Veiled Threat

In the fog of ideological & psychological warfare, with conflicting claims of  a face saving compromise which would relocate the Ground Zero Mosque  of triumph and save the Florida Qur’ans from a fiery fate,  we need to get back to basics and focus on the significant core issues.

The Imam behind the Ground Zero Mosque of Triumph, Feisal Abdul Rauf, issued a  thinly veiled threat in an interview with The Larry King Show. The Washington post included a video clip in their article., headlined: “Imam Rauf: National security hinges on Mosque debate“.

The Post placed this quote  above the video: “Our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it.”

This was a particularly difficult interview to transcribe because both the interviewer and interviewee spoke rapidly and  with soft voices.  The video buffers too slowly on my connection, my  eustachian tubes were not clearing, and my hearing aids are incompatible with my headset.  I had to use the telecoils, and my monitor is louder than my headset.  I did not get everything, but this should be close enough to convey the important meaning.

…”But I also have a responsibility. If we move from that location the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse, the headline in the Islamic world will be that Islam is under attack. And I am less concerned by the radicals in America than I am concerned  by the radicals in the Muslim world. … the danger from the radicals in the MW to our national security–to the nationals security of our troops- I have a niece who works in the Army in [inaudible] Iraq– the concern for American citizens who live and work and travel overseas will increasingly be compromised if the radicals are strengthened. 

If we do move it, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit  and their increasing aggression. The idea of [inaudible] is to create something like a Muslim Y. The YMCA was created one hundred and thirty years ago. to improve relationships between what was then called the American protestant religions by having young men and young women, of course they were separate at that time; YMCA/YWCA, common bond you know, by doing sports together and other programs together. [inaudible]
And that second street Y was an attempt by the Jewish community  to create a center where you’d create that kind of bonding.   We are now, today, where the Jewish community and the Catholic community was maybe seventy years ago, a century ago and this is our time; our turn to do that.

(What’s on the table now?)
The biggest issue is the national security issue.
(How do you pull out without looking like you’ve lost?)

Without making it look both in this country and in the Muslim world.  You must remember that what we do is watched all over the world.  And we are very engaged with the Muslim world.  And our security is really number one, our national security, our personal security is extremely important. And this issue has become now a national security issue. And therefore in our conversations, in our decision making process, we have to weigh many many factors and that has been dominant among them.

(Is there a middle ground that has you pull out of the center and do something else? that’s what it sounds like you are saying.)  We are discussing many things right now but, you know, we haven’t found yet an option  that would work in a safe way.

(What are … what you are considering?)

As I said,. we consider everything in life. but we have to be very cautious here because the voices of the radicals have ratcheted up and we must make sure that the moderates take over the conversation.

(Given what you know now, would you have built?)

As I mentioned it, this story is not new. People knew about it.  …(Right, but given what you know now would you have said ‘listen, lets not do it there because…’  because it sounds like  you are saying, in retrospect , you wouldn’t have done it? )

Well,yes, if…if…(You would not have done it?)
If I knew this would happen, this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn’t have done it.  My life has been devoted to peace making,

(…There are so many people who say… if you are saying it was a mistake, then why can’t you get out of it and not do it?)

because we have to now make sure that whatever we do actually results in greater peace, not in greater conflict.

(Why do you think this structure is causing all this controversy now? )

Well there is a certain amount of anti-Islamic sentiment in this country (what now?) and we have seen it in the attacks upon mosques in various parts of the country in the last several weeks. So it is clear that this issue is not just about our center which is an attempt to create peace between Muslims and  non-Muslims but this has aroused a certain anti-Islam sentiment which is unfortunate in this country–we need to look at it and have a discourse about it and make sure this does not dominate the discourse between us because Americans believe fundamentally  and in a very fundamental strong way about freedom of religion, about separation of governments and churches, in separation of church and state which means the power of the government should not be used to coerce people to believe in any religion but it should be used to defend and protect religious rights and freedoms.  So this is the conversation we need to have right now.

(Lets talk about money: one hundred million dollars is the price tag for this Islamic cultural center, where are you going to get the money?)

Well we have yet to raise a capital campaign…(You have no money for it yet?)

We haven’t raised any money for it yet.  .

(Where will you get the money?)

We’ll get the money from whatever sources we can, domestically especially, and be very transparent about how we raise the money. This has been something that we have committed ourselves to . (Meaning you will list whoever is giving you money?) Yes.  ( Will you turn down money from people who give money to say, HAMAS?) Absolutely. (No question about it; anyone who gives money to HAMAS can not give money to you ?) We will do whatever is absolutely correct and legal and safe thing   to do.

(Which means what exactly? Because that’s an extra condition?)  You see, I’m the visionary behind it, I’m not the actual builder, I’m not the financial expert, I’m not  the legal expert on these things, but I have a vision here of  establishing something which I know, in my heart of hearts, will be a powerful instrument of peace.

(  Who would you not take money from, who would you say no to, who would you turn away?)

We would turn it from anybody who was deemed to be a danger to this process.  (People I think, here in New York and around the country would say ‘ that is sacred land, that is a special place for everyone in America– is that a step toward peace?) As Clyde Haberman [sp?] and many many people have said, “look what exists in that neighborhood”, look what exists around the corner.  ( Oh, I believe you, I’ve lived downtown, so I know the neighborhood very well. )

So lets be clear, calling this particular block sacred  ground is and what exists there… you know…(strip clubs and delis, I’ve been there a million times, but I think when people call it sacred ground, they’re saying something terrible  happened on this spot and and we’ve…)

We’ve got to be fair you can’t say a place that has strip joints is sacred ground. We’ve got to be just, we’ve got to speak the truth we’ve got to have justice for everybody,  we’re a country of justice for all, not just for non-Muslims only or some groups and not for others This is what America is all about, Solidad. We’ve got to really mean what we say and say what our values  are truly about.

This isn’t… the discourse has been hijacked by people who say “no”.

(you’ve heard about this Pastor in Florida, Terry Jones,who is proposing burning Qur’ans on 9/11,  what do you think of that?)

I would plead with him to seriously consider what he is doing. (Why?)  Its going to feed to the radicals in the Muslim world.  Its dangerous, General Petraeus has said that. It is something that is not the right thing to do on that ground. …
(Do you  think he has a right to do it?)

And more importantly, well, we have freedom in this country, freedom of speech, but with freedom comes responsibility.  It is a famous saying to shout fire in a crowded theatre, this is dangerous for our national security, and also the un-Christian thing to do.  Jesus Christ didn’t teach us to do that, we Muslims have a … we look to the example of our Prophet- to our Prophet’s sunnah. Many Christians say, ‘What would Jesus do”
Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, Jesus taught us to love your enemy, we are not your enemies.  This is what Jesus taught us to do, and I would like to suggest that  you know–we all have to live  by the highest principles of our faith traditions

  • “If we move from that location the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse”

I presume he means  us, the Americans who resist the erection of a victory Mosque on the scene of the  accursed abomination.

  • “the headline in the Islamic world will be that Islam is under attack.”

The finger of blame switches from those who are poking a gigantic middle finger in our eye to those of us who are vociferously resisting  the attack.

  • “I am concerned  by the radicals in the Muslim world. “…
    • “the danger from the radicals in the MW to our national security”

“Radical” Muslims are likely to throw stones and bombs at our troops, assault tourists and businessmen overseas, and terrorize us at home because we vocally resist the erection of  their symbol of triumph in the place where they murdered 2700 people nine years ago.   We are accused of provoking our tormentors by resisting them.   Does anyone else perceive the moral inversion performed in this case?

Muslims are taught that any step taken to injure or anger us is imputed to their credit as a deed of righteousness, to be weighed against their sins on Judgment Day.  You’d learn that fun fact in 9:120, if you’d read that damn Qur’an instead of ignoring or burning it. They don’t need any incentive from us to attack us.

  • “If we do move it, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit  and their increasing aggression.”

If they relocate the project, moderate Muslims will be radicalized and recruited by terrorists.  The difference between a moderate and a radical is that the latter is fully aware of Allah’s imperatives and seeks to implement them.  Moderates are either ignorant or indolent,  those whom Muhammad called hypocrites whose Islam goes no deeper than their throats.  They profess but do not practice.   We have been told that  relocating the project from Ground Zero will cause more Muslims to seek to implement Allah’s imperatives.  In that case, is there any real difference in the beliefs of radicals and moderates?

  • “The YMCA was created one hundred and thirty years ago. to improve relationships between what was then called the American protestant religions”…
    • “We are now, today, where the Jewish community and the Catholic community was maybe seventy years ago, a century ago and this is our time; our turn to do that.”

A Young Muslim’s Christian Association?  Oh, right, a Young Muslim’s Association.   The Y serves 45 million people in 120 countries. Guess which countries ain’t served.  No Y in Arabia or North Africa, why is that?  But we need another Muslim (terrorist) recruiting station in New York. Yeah, right.

  • “The biggest issue is the national security issue.”

How big is it?  How many more attacks, how much increase in the scale of those attacks? If that face saving compromise Pastor Terry Jones thought he had worked out was genuine, would that result in a national security problem?

  • “You must remember that what we do is watched all over the world.”
    • this issue has become now a national security issue.

The question was one of  relocating the project without the appearance of defeat. How about the reality?  It would be a strategic setback because any alternative location would not have the psychological effect of the Ground Zero location, it would contribute much less to the Muslim’s sense of triumph.  The answer speaks volumes.  Rauf is concerned about defeat in the eyes of the Ummah.  But anything that deflates their egos should bring about some reduction in recruitment and enthusiasm for terrorism. That would make a positive contribution to peace and security.  Strategy is inverted along with morality.

  • “we haven’t found yet an option  that would work in a safe way”

No options that would not increase the security risk?  We get more attacks unless the symbol of Islamic supremacy is erected on the site of the abomination?

  • “we have to be very cautious here because the voices of the radicals have ratcheted up and we must make sure that the moderates take over the conversation”

The emphasis is on “radicals” and “moderates”. The moderate voice is quiescent because “moderates” are not zealots; they are not empowered and motivated to speak out and act; they are passive.  The “radicals” have the mission, motivation and machine guns; they are activated.

Did anything escape your attention in that quote? Look again.  Who is Rauf concerned with?  Only Muslims; our perceptions, attitudes, feelings and interests don’t count, they are not under consideration. He ain’t interested in anyone but Muslims.

  • “If I knew this would happen, this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn’t have done it.  My life has been devoted to peace making,”

Rauf was not expecting a vigorous, vociferous reaction.  He was not expecting intensive and extensive news coverage.  Did he make a war?  No, he made a controversy, and that ain’t exactly the polar opposite of “peace making”.  Of course, Muslims make peace by subjugating disbelievers. Peace follows victory.

  • “we have to now make sure that whatever we do actually results in greater peace, not in greater conflict.”

He can not admit defeat and back down because that would result in “greater conflict”.  If we surrender, that results in peace; if he surrenders, that results in conflict.  Got a clue yet?

  • “there is a certain amount of anti-Islamic sentiment in this country”
  • ” it is clear that this issue is not just about our center”
  • “make sure this does not dominate the discourse between us because Americans believe fundamentally  and in a very fundamental strong way about freedom of religion, about separation of governments and churches, in separation of church and state which means the power of the government should not be used to coerce people to believe in any religion but it should be used to defend and protect religious rights and freedoms.”

Nineteen Muslims hijacked four airliners and flew three of them into office buildings.  Their act was motivated by the preaching and example of Muhammad bin Abdullah, the founder of Islam.  Their act was celebrated by Muslims all over the world.  What sort of fool expects us to have a neutral or pro-Islamic sentiment after that?   A cockpit voice recorder was recovered, exposing  exclamations of “Allahu akhbar” as the flight crew was murdered.   People wondered why, and research was done; books and movies were created which expose the doctrines and practices of Islam.  Some of us looked up the Barbary Wars, and what we discovered in  the historical recored confirmed what we learned  from your texts and outraged us.

How is it possible to have a discourse not dominated by the fact that your demon demands that you conquer and subjugate us?   Freedom of religion means that we can choose any religion or none at all. Islam demands that it have a monopoly, that only Allah be worshiped.  The two are not compatible, they are polar opposites.

Separation of Church and state means that the two institutions are independent, they do not interfere in each other’s affairs. Islam demands that all law be Allah’s law, Shari’ah, not man made legislation.  That is the polar opposite of separation of church and state.   Freedom of religion and separation of church and state do not serve as your license to wage war on us or dominate us by out breeding us, subversion & sedition.

  • ( Will you turn down money from people who give money to say, HAMAS?) “Absolutely”. (No question about it; anyone who gives money to HAMAS can not give money to you ?) “We will do whatever is absolutely correct and legal and safe thing   to do.”
  • “We would turn it from anybody who was deemed to be a danger to this process.”

Wear your black dot garden gloves to keep a grip on this snake. Why is HAMAS an issue?  Rauf will not acknowledge the fact that it is a terrorist organization.  Neither would he acknowledge the fact, if asked, that there is no difference between HAMAS  and Islam.

Giving money to HAMAS is illegal. Taking money from HAMAS donors is not illegal.  Their willingness to donate to you  as well as  to HAMAS tells us  who & what you are. The fact that you want to disassociate yourself from them provides the same information.  But we already knew that you are Muslims.  What constitutes a “danger to this process” ?  The implication is that you would reject money from anyone whose reputation or associations would impair your false image of peaceful  moderation.

  • “We’ve got to be fair you can’t say a place that has strip joints is sacred ground.”

What makes any ground sacred?  What desecrates it?  If the flesh, bone & blood of your family and associates is finely divided and splattered over several city blocks by an aircraft  impact   and the subsequent collapse of  the impacted building,  are that place, those scattered remains and their memories any less sacred  to you than they would be in a consecrated cemetery  in your church yard?  In fact, there was a church on that site.  Is the site desecrated by the presence of strip joints and other business establishments which pre-existed the accursed abomination?

If your loved one and  colleagues were murdered by assassins motivated by the damnable doctrines of an accursed war cult, what is the effect on your psyche of the erection, on the site where the ash and smoke of your loved one settled, of a shrine where the war cult’s devotees will remind their  demon seventeen times every day of how your loved one and you have “earned” his wrath & “gone astray”; a place where they will curse us and supplicate their demon for “victory over the disbelieving folk”?  Does that or does that not impair the sanctity of the site more than a strip club around the corner?

  • “I would plead with him to seriously consider what he is doing. (Why?)  Its going to feed to the radicals in the Muslim world.  Its dangerous, General Petraeus has said that. It is something that is not the right thing to do on that ground. …”

Burning a Qir’an as a symbol of objection to the damnable doctrines enshrined therein and the accursed actions inspired thereby and to the erection of a  shrine to them  in a place where those  damnable doctrines and accursed actions resulted in more than 2000 deaths  “feeds radicals”  but burning the American flag, the symbol of liberty and justice for all, chanting “death to America” ,  and bearing signs reading “Islam will dominate the world” and “freedom go to Hell” along with “behead those who Insult Islam”  are innocent acts of no import or impact whatsoever, though they are carried out by thousands where as Terry Jones has fifty in his congregation.  Proportionality, anyone?  Can you perceive moral inversion??

  • ‘What would Jesus do”

He lectures us  by Jesus?  Unholy sacrilege!!! The Islamic version of Jesus is Allah’s slave, not God’s son, was not crucified, neither was he killed nor resurrected.  And he will return to lead the Muslims in  battle against us, the final and ultimate genocide.  He will rule the world by the Qur’an.   The arrogance of Muslims knows no bounds.  If you have any doubt about the veracity of this paragraph, read this blog post: The Defamation of Jesus Christ.

September 10, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Islamic Radicalism?, Political Correctness | , , , , , | Leave a comment


%d bloggers like this: