Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Innocence of Muslims Update: OIC Demands Blasphemy Law


Pakistan
addressed the General Assembly on behalf of the OIC.  They demand
international  imposition of Islamic blasphemy law. It is
necessary to highlight their AssWholliness
& hypocrisy; that is the mission of this blog post.  They are
bitching about Innocence of Musalims, Charlie Hebdo’s outrageous
cartoons and Qur’an burning.  Carefully examine the video and
answer these questions:

  1. What does the video say about Muhammad and the cult he founded?
  2. Is it true or false?
  3. Where is the hate they are bitching about?
  4. Where is the incitement they are bitching about?

http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/10570item_9_Pakistan_on_behalf_of_OIC.pdf

STATEMENT BY PAKISTAN ON BEHALF OF THE
OIC IN THE GENERAL

DEBATE UNDER AGENDA ITEM 9

Madam President,

I have the honour to make this statement on behalf of the OIC,

The OIC Group unequivocally condemns the recent production of a film in
the

United States called “The Innocence of Muslims” which tries to defame Islam and the

personality of the Holy Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon Him). This film is a blatant

attempt to provoke religious
hatred
, discrimination
and intolerance
that has led to unfortunate

loss of life and damage to property. In this context, we also strongly
condemn the violence

that resulted in the deaths of a number of people including a US
diplomat.

We note that the Secretary
General of the United Nations, The High


Commissioner for Human Rights
and the President of the United States
have also expressed

their opposition to the film.

Incidents like this clearly demonstrate the urgent
need on the part of States to

introduce adequate protection against acts of hate crimes, hate speech,
discrimination,


intimidation and coercion
resulting from defamation and negative stereotyping of religions,


and incitement to religious
hatred, as well denigration of venerated personalities.

Over the past months, there have been a number of
examples of acts of

incitement to hatred.
These include despicable incidents involving the burning of the Holy

Quran, and the publication of
defamatory cartoons
. OIC countries have repeatedly called on

the Governments concerned to take action to avert these offensive actions but nothing
has

been done on the excuse that such action would be a violation of the freedom of expression.

The OIC underlines that the situation created by the malicious act affirms once
more the

urgency for all States to fully uphold their obligations under
international law”, in particular

articles 19 and 20 olf ICCPR and article 4 of the International

Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

We disagree. These are not exercises in freedom of expression but deliberate  attempts


to discriminate, defame,
denigrate and vilify Muslims and their beliefs.
Such acts

constitute flagrant incitement
to violence and are therefore in contravention of ICCPR


Articles 19 and 20. It
is therefore abundantly clear that there exists an urgent need to
establish

an internationally acceptable
threshold between freedom of expression and incitement to


violence and hatred.

The OIC has
never advocated any prohibitions on freedom of expression
.
Our

emphasis has been on the need to examine the consequences of unchecked,
unbridled and

irresponsible statements and
actions
made by certain groups and individuals that deliberately

instigate and incite violence
on the basis of religion or belief.
This can include situations

involving religious minorities
or situations in which minorities react violently
either in their

home societies or in societies where their co-religionists are in a
majority.

None of.this is completely uncharted territory. For
instance, we are all aware of

the fact that laws exist in Europe and other countries which impose curbs on anti-Semetic

speech, holocaust denial or
racial slurs
. We need to acknowledge, once and for all, that

Islamophobia in
particular and discrimination on the basis of religion and belief are

contemporary forms of racism
and must be dealt with as such. Not to do so would be a
clear

example of double standards. Islamophobia has to be
treated in law and practice equal to the


treatment given to
anti-Semitism, especially in the legislations. –

We recall the general comment 11 of the Human Rights
Committee and

general comment of the Committee on Elimination of Racial
Discrimination which confirm.

that restricting the freedom of expression on issues relating to racial
discrimination applies

. also for incitement to religious hatred.

The OIC’s resolution on “Combating Intolerance,
Negative Stereotyping And

Stigmatization of; and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence, and
Violence against Persons

based on Religion or Belief” adopted by consensus at the 16th
session of the Human Rights

Council on 24 March 2011, was a concrete attempt: to address this very.
concern by bringing

all the key players on board. The consensus resolution was the -result
of a long and often,

difficult negotiation process.

The OIC welcomes the joint statement by the OIC
Secretary general, Arab

League Secretary general, African Union Commissioner for Peace and
Security and European

Union High Representative for foreign and Security policy in which they
shared the profound

respect for all religion and refuse to, allow religion to be used to
fuel provocation,

confrontation and extremism. They reiterated their strong commitment to
take further

measures and to work for an international consensus on tolerance and full respect of
religion
,       <<<

including on the basis of UN Human rights Council resolution 16/18.

At the heart of the resolution are a series of
practical steps to be taken by states

to combat the ever increasing instances of intolerance, negative stereo-typing,
stigmatization


and discrimination and violence
all over the world. This core issue has been approached in a

manner that is acceptable to
all
so that all stake-holders are bound by the commitments

contained in the text. The OIC believes that there is an urgent need to
take concrete steps

towards the implementation of the plan action contained in the
resolution to avoid the

occurrence of such condemnable
incidents in the future
. If this is not done, there is a very real

chance of a
breakdown of the delicate consensus on this issue as reflected in the
resolution


which would be
unfortunate for all of us.

The OIC remains ready to work with its international
partners at the Human

Rights Council in Geneva, the UN General Assembly in New York to
address and resolve

these critical issues in order to better protect and promote
human rights as well as peace and .


security within our
respective societies.

We also call upon the High Commissioner and her
Office to assist this . important effort.

I thank you.

 

tries to defame

If you were trying to defame someone with a video,
would you derive its dialogue from his original hagiographic biography
and the most authentic oral traditions from his companions?  In
Western legal tradition, defamation involves malicious falsehood.
Exactly what is false about the video’s depiction of Moe?

deliberate provocation

What does the video have to do with religious
hatred, discrimination and intolerance?  It illustrated the hatred
of Muslims who, when they can do it with impunity, murder Christians
and destroy their property.  What is provocative about that? Must
the news media be prevented from reporting on religiously motivated
violence in Africa. Arabia and Asia because it might be
provocative?  What was Moe’s attitude toward infidels? Was it
accurately depicted in the video? What is provocative about that?

unfortunate loss of life

How did the video lead to loss of life? How many of
the rioters saw the video? The riots were deliberately stirred up by
mass media and rabid rants in the mosques. Fortune had nothing to do
with murder and destruction, they are intended effects of the damnable
doctrines of Islam.

What did Christians destroy and whom did they kill
over “Piss Christ” and “The Holy Virgin Mary”?  What is the
difference between Christians and Muslims or their respective doctrines
that explains the widely divergent reactions to disturbing
images?  What did Jesus do?  What did Moe do?  Whom do
Muslims emulate?  Do the murders of Kab Ashraf, Asma Bint Marwan
and Um Qirfa ring a bell?

appeal to authority

The listed authority figures are full of fecal
matter so that it comes out their mouths, which I pointed out in
several blog posts. It ain’t who you know, it is what you know. I know
that the conceptual content of the video is true according to Islam’s
canon.  I know that there is no rational basis for condemning the
video.  I know that the listed authority figures are scared
witless of Islam and seek to appease Muslims.  I do not accept
them as an argument for censorship.

hate crimes, hate speech…

Hate crimes and hate speech do not flow from
defamation or negative stereotyping, they flow from hate. The riots in
Egypt and murders in Bengazi are the fruit of wala wal bara:
“love and hate for the sake of Allah”. Those are hate crimes, for which
the criminals constantly seek pretexts. That is low intensity warfare,
a doctrine borrowed from the Soviets and their ‘non aligned’ clients.

Moe hated Jews and Christians because they perceived
the fraudulent nature of the cult he contrived to ensnare them with
perverted and distorted stories from their scriptures and apocryphal
books. The first surah of the Qur’an reminds Allah why he should want
to burn us. Muslims recite it 17 times each day.  The second surah
says that we are cursed by Allah, angels and men.  The third tells
Muslims that they are the best of peoples raised up for mankind as they
drag us to Islam in chains.  It also tells Muslims that if they
attack us, we will do them no harm.

defamation

It ain’t defamatory unless it is false and
malicious.  Did the video defame Moe when it reported that he
thought he was demon possessed and tried to kill himself?  Before
answering, perhaps you should refer to the first book in Sahih Bukhari
and Ibn Sa’d’s  hadith collection.  Did the video defame Moe
when it depicted him as a pedophile?  Perhaps you should go to
your favorite hadith search engine and look up “six years old” before
answering that. Muttawir ahadith testify to Aisha’s age at marriage and
consummation, with one hadith giving her age as seven.

Did the video defame Moe when it depicted him as a
lecher?  Did he really divert Hafsa from the bedroom on her night
in order to tryst with her slave girl?  Dig into Volume 9 of the
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, page 88 if memory
serves.   And the murder of Kinana & rape of his widow,
Safiya? True or false?  Look it up in Guillaume’s The Life of
Muhammad and Tabari’, if memory serves, its in Vol. 8.  And the
talking donkey?  Ishaq reveals that it was paid in tribute by an
Egyptian ruler, along with the slave girl and her sister.  The
part about the interview with the donkey is in the Encyclopedia of
Canonical Hadith.

And the command to wage war, killing the men and
enslaving their widows and orphans, is that true? If you read the
Qur’an, surahs 8, 9 & 33, you know the answer.

stereotyping

The video does not say anything about Muslims other
than Moe and his companions who are long since dead.  How does it
stereotype Muslims?  Moe defined and exemplified Islam.  33:21 tells Muslims if they want to meet Allah in
a positive way, they had better emulate Moe.  3:32
tells them to Obey Allah & Moe.  What Moe was, pious believers
are to the extent that they know his sunnah and are able to emulate
it.

If Moe channeled Satan instead of God, which he did,
then in stead of worshiping God, Muslims worship his adversary.
If Moe revealed situational scripture, which he did, then Muslims
follow a fraud: a false prophet.    When we expose the
truth about Allah & Moe, we expose Muslims as demon’s slaves and
members of a crime syndicate.

incitement to religious hatred

How does the video incite religious hatred?
And what is the foul if it did?  Should not an impious fraud which
has murdered millions and enslaves billions be hated?  Exposing
evil is not incitement.  Doing evil is incitement. The terrorism,
riots & murders,. not cartoons, books & videos cause us to hate
Islam.

denigration

Moe was venal, not venerable, Guillaume’s The
Life of Muhammad
and The Sealed Nectar
display the true character and works of Moe; should they be banned for
denigration of a venerable personality?

acts of incitement

Uttering & publishing Innocence of Muslims
is not an act of incitement, it is an act of education:: showing
viewers a fair sample what Moe was and what he did.  The Qur’an is
an insulting incitement; Allah told Moe to recite it in a low voice to
avoid stirring up the pagans.

(And offer your Salah neither aloud nor in a low voice,) Ibn `Abbas
said: “When he prayed with his Companions, he would recite Qur’an
loudly, and when the idolators heard that, they insulted the Qur’an,
and the One Who had revealed it and the one who had brought it. So
Allah said to His Prophet

What was Moe doing when he recited these ayat? How
does recitation of these verses and the rest of the 164
violent verses
comport with ICCPR
19 & 20 CPPCG
3 and ICERD
4?

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). 

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.

3:110. You [true believers in Islâmic Monotheism,
and real followers of Prophet Muhammad  and his Sunnah (legal
ways, etc.)] are
the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind;
you enjoin
Al-Ma’rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained) and
forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has
forbidden), and you believe in Allâh. And had the people of the
Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for
them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are
Al-Fâsiqûn (disobedient to Allâh – and rebellious against Allâh’s
Command).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

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

3:111. They will do you no
harm, barring a trifling annoyance
; and if they fight against
you, they will show you their backs, and they will not be helped.

3:112. Indignity is put over
them wherever they may be
, except when under a covenant (of
protection) from Allâh, and from men; they have drawn on themselves the
Wrath of Allâh, and destruction
is put over them
. This is because they disbelieved in
the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)
of Allâh and killed the Prophets without right. This is because they
disobeyed (Allâh) and used to transgress beyond bounds (in Allâh’s
disobedience, crimes and sins).

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.

8:67. It is not for a Prophet
that he should have prisoners of war
(and free them with ransom)
until he had
made a great slaughter
(among his
enemies) in the land. You
desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the
captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is
All-Mighty, All-Wise.

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.

9:38. 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.

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

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).

61:10. O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that
will save you from a painful torment.

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.

offensive actions

Publishing videos, cartoons and books along with
burning the Qur’an are symbolic actions which do no objective
harm.  Burning churches, murdering Christians, bombing mass
transit and flying hijacked aircraft into office buildings are
offensive actions which incite us to utter and publish the truth about
Islam.

freedom of expression.

Amendment I

Congress
shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press
; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.

 

George Washington:

If the freedom of speech is taken away
then dumb and silent we may be
led, like sheep to the slaughter.

Since Islam declared and is prosecuting war upon us
it is necessary that we be able to discuss it with honesty, accuracy
and clarity.  The War College and West Point need to be free to
give full and honest instruction in the doctrines and laws of Islam in
the training of our officer corps.  Censorship and political
correctness must be rolled back and stamped out!

Imposition of Islamic blasphemy law would make
Thomas Jefferson a criminal for uttering & publishing his report to
Congress.

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

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

malicious act

Publishing Innocence of Muslims
is not a malicious act, it simply makes available, for those who wish
to view it, an accurate depiction of a segment of the Life of
Moe.  Rousing the rabble to attack our Embassy & Consulate and
murder our Ambassador and staff were malicious acts.

Enforcement of human rights covenants

is indeed an urgent matter.  The International
Criminal Court must open a case condemning Islam for incitement to war,
racial supremacism and incitement to genocide.  Because Islam
perpetrated the Hindu, Assyrian & Armenian genocides and seeks to
commit genocide against Jews, it must be condemned and proscribed by
law.

OIC never advocated

prohibition of free expression; never?  You demanded that Holland
block release of Fitna and
Wilders’ book. You demanded that Denmark prosecute the publisher of the
Motoons.
You promoted the passage of UN resolutions condemning and demanding the
criminalization of criticism of Islam and you demand persecution of the
creator of Innocence
of Muslims
. But you never advocated abridgment of the right of
free speech: Camelshit!

consequences

Cartoons, videos, books and statements do not have
consequences. The barbarian behavior of Muslim mobs is a consequence of
the rabid ranting of Imams at Jumah Salat, not anything we do.
Muslims exploit anything we say or do as a pretext for barbarism but
pretext is not causation, it is rationalization. Ladies and
gentlemen:  Get a God blessed clue for Chrissake!!! I present for
your edification a sentence of Shari’ah from Hedaya, the code of the
Hanifi school of fiqh.

The destruction of the sword  is
incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as
appears from various passages in the  sacred writings which are
generally received this effect. [
http://www.archive.org/stream/hedaysorguide00hamigoog#page/n154/mode/1up]

minorities react violently

Did Copts burn mosques when Piss Christ and The Holy Virgin Mary
were put on display as ‘art’?  When  Muslims ‘react
violently’, they exemplify the damnable doctrines of Islam and their
own AssWholliness, which alone are the
causes of their violence.

Curbs

on antisemitism & holocaust denial exemplify European stateism, the
USA does not emulate them because of our First Amendment. We allow free
and open debate, secure in the belief that truth will triumph in a
level venue.  Those restrictions on European free speech  do
not serve as a positive model for imposition of Islam’s blaspemy
law.  Islam seeks to prohibit all criticism of Allah, Moe and
their damned war cult because they are indefensible; our factual
evidence and logic can not be refuted. Islam can not prevail in free
debate, so it must silence all critics by force just as Moe
commissioned the assassinations of his critics.

racism

What race is Islam?  Its founder and first
adherents were Arabs but it has conquered and forcibly converted
Africans, Asians and Caucasians.  The existence of both Black and
White Muslims  and the ability to become Muslim without changing
one’s skin pigment or physiognomy serve to devastate the accusation of
racism in thinking minds.  Hurling that epithet is the  last
refuge of  scurrilous politicians and AssWholes.

Islamophobia

Phobia is an irrational fear. After the Accursed
Abomination 11 years ago, we are fully aware of the fact that Islam is
a worthy object of fear, loathing and execration, death & damnation
be upon it! Islam inculcates hatred and incites genocidal
violence.  Hatred of Islam is well founded and rational, not
irrational.

legislation

https://snooper.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/defamation-of-religions-background-info/
contains links to the documents you should read to get a good grip on
the issue of the legislation demanded by the OIC.

https://snooper.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/big-lie-un-drops-call-to-outlaw-defamation-of-religions/
tackles the issue of Res 16/18 in detail.

https://snooper.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/ad-hoc-cmte-war-on-free-speech/

https://snooper.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/ad-hoc-committee-new-resolutions/
This pair of blog posts will acquaint you with a parallel process
running below the radar of mass media.  The Ad Hoc Committee on
Elaboration of Complementary Standards meets for ten days each spring
and fall for the purpose of coding Islam’s blasphemy laws into a
binding protocol to ICERD.  If they succeed and the President
signs the damn thing, kiss the First Amendment  goodbye
forever.  The Iranian proposal and the non paper paper are
essential to understanding what they propose to do.

tolerance & respect

Tolerance is a two way street. Islam is intolerant.
Go back and re-read 3:85 and the context of 3:110. That is
intolerance, not tolerance.  How in Hell can anyone who declares
perpetual war against Jews & Christians
lecture us about
tolerance?  Only by supreme AssWholliness!

Respect must be earned; Islam has not earned it and
is no more respectable than it is tolerable.  I can not tolerate
propagation of the idea that my blood and property are not sacred; that I have
no human rights and its open season.  I can not tolerate that
which declares and war against me.

I can not respect a G’d’d demon who demands genocide
as the price of admission to his Celestial Bordello. I can not respect a pederast
who claimed divine sanction for his marriage to his
best friend’s six year old daughter.  I can not respect a
false prophet who attributed to his idol what his idol did not say, asserting divine sanction for his sexual proclivities.

promote peace and security

The highlighted clause in this sentence fragment is
a thinly veiled threat:  threatening violence if we do not submit
to censorship. By God, I will never submit!!!

…to
address and resolve these critical issues in order to better protect and promote
human rights as well as peace and .


security within our
respective societies.

Peace and
security can only be promoted by making Islam extinct.

Advertisements

September 28, 2012 Posted by | Ahadith, GWOT, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Hypocrisy:Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization …


Combating intolerance, negative
stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to
violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief A/HRC/19/L.7 passed by consensus 03/23/12.

HYPOCRISY!

The OIC sponsored resolution contains a provision
180° out of phase with Shari’ah, as codified in Reliance of the
Traveller.

Reaffirming 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
,

011.5 Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to

comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety

and indemnity oflife, reputation, and property. In

addition, they:

(1) are penalized for committing adultery or

theft, though not for drunkenness;

(2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress,

wearing a wide cloth belt (zunna:r);

(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
.

 

04.2 The indemnity for
killing a male Muslim is


100 camels.

(N: Shafi’i scholars early converted the pastoral

equivalents to gold dinars (n: one dinar

equalling 4.235 grams of gold (dis: w15», the

amount due in the rulings below being the weight

of the gold, regardless of its current market

value.) (A: The stronger position in the Shafi’i

school is that indemnities should be reckoned in

camels, after which both parties may agree on a

lesser amount or another form of payment.)

]…]

04.9 (A: For the rulings below, one multiplies

the fraction named by the indemnity appropriate

to the death or injury’s type of intentionality and

other relevant circumstances that determine the

amount of a male Muslim’s indemnity (def:

04.2-6 and 04.13).)

The indemnity for
the death or injury of a


woman is one-half
the indemnity paid for a man.


The indemnity paid
for a Jew or Christian is


one-third of the
indemnity paid for a Muslim. The


indemnity paid for
a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth


of that of a Muslim.

 

Reaffirming also 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 choice
,
and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in
public or private, to
manifest his religion or belief in worship,
observance, practice and teaching,

08.1 When a person who has reached puberty

and is sane voluntarily
apostatizes from Islam, he



deserves to be killed.

.

08.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the

caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to

repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is

accepted from him, but
if he refuses, he is



immediately killed.

011.5 […]

(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
.

Reaffirming further 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,

The organization who demanded persecution of the
publishers of the Danish Cartoons & Fitna and which seeks to
suppress the publication of Geert Wilders’ new book reaffirms the
positive role of free expression, yeah, right.

Deeply concerned about incidents of intolerance, discrimination and
violence

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

The OIC is “deeply concerned
about the slaughter, with impunity, of indigenous Christians in Egypt
& Nigeria and the bombing & burning of their homes, businesses
& churches.  “Condemns in the strongest possible terms…”
Yeah, right, as if they would say “Allah’s curse  be upon those
Muslims who murder Christians and destroy their property; may he bring
down the governments who allow impunity to the perpetrators. ”
They don’t and they won’t and we all know why they don’t.

Deploring any advocacy of discrimination or violence

on the basis of religion or belief,

8:65.
O Prophet (Muhammad )! Urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty
steadfast persons amongst you, they will overcome two hundred, and if
there be a hundred steadfast persons they will overcome a thousand of
those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are people who do
not understand.

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).

o9.8 Thc caliph (025) makes
war upon Jews,


Christians, and
Zoroastrians
(N: provided he has

first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice,

and if they will not, then invited them to

enter the social order of Islam by paying the nonMuslim

poll tax (jizya, def: 01 L4)-which is the

significance of their paying it, not the money

itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions)

(0: and the war
continues) until they


become Muslim or
else pay the non-Muslim poll


tax (0: in
accordance with the word of Allah Most

High,

Fight those who do
not believe in Allah and


the Last Day and
who forbid not what Allah and


His messenger have
forbidden-who do not practice


the religion of
truth, being of those who have


been given the
Book-until they pay the poll tax


out of hand and are
humbled” (Koran 9:29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent

of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his

final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted

from them. for taking the poll tax is only effective

until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be

peace), which is the divinely revealed law of

Muhammad, The coming of Jesus does not entail

a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule

by the law of Muhammad, As for the Prophet’s

saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“I am the last, there will be no prophet

after me,”

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus

(upon whom be peace), since he will not rule

according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our

Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)).

There is and can be no G’d’d lie more egregious than
claiming to deplore advocacy of violence based on religion  or
belief when your own G’d’d scripture, codified into Shari’ah, urges and
commands
you to wage perpetual war against Christians, Jews &
Zoroastrians.

Muslims who would sincerely abjure offensive jihad [Reliance,
Hedaya] condemn themselves to immediate execution
by the caliph and
eternal damnation by Allah as apostates from Islam.  They can’t,
they don’t & they never will and it is blessed well time for the
world to acknowledge this fatal fact.

08.7 (0: Among the things that entail
apostasy

from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

[]

(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 not belong

to it;

(14) to deny the
obligatory character of


something which by
the consensus of Muslims


(ijma’, def: b7) is
part of Islam
, when it is well

known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one

rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if

there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

(19) to be
sarcastic about any ruling of the


Sacred Law;

Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances

of derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of
persons based on their religion or belief, as well as programmes and
agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at creating
and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups, in
particular when condoned by Governments;

  1. Motoons
  2. Fitna
  3. International Burn the Koran Day
  4. International Judge the Koran Day
  5. “Palestinians are an invented people”
  6. “Obviously,
    Muslims would be someone you’d look at, absolutely,” … “The radical
    Muslims are the people committing these
    crimes, by and large, as well as younger males… Not exclusively but
    these are things you profile to find the most likely candidate.”

Adopting measures to criminalize

incitement to
imminent violence based on religion or belief
;

Incitement?  8:39,
57,
60, 65;
9:5,29,
110,
120,
123
& Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 or pointing them out?

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.”

derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization

Exactly how is that list different from
“defamation”??  Previous resolutions and one parallel resolution bitch bitterly about
associating Islam with terrorism. That is what it is all about,
especially “profiling”.  The perpetrators of most recent mass
casualty terror attacks were Muslims shouting takbir when they
attacked.  Allah said that he would & did cast terror. Allah
commanded Muslims to strike terror and prepare to strike terror. Moe
bragged  about being made victorious by terror. Perish the thought
of any association between Islam & terrorism.

Terrorism is a battle tactic sanctified and ordained by Allah. Here is
the proof from the Qur’an, hadith and Tafsir Ibn kathir. Muslims do not
want us to know about this fatal fact and bitterly bitch about its
exposure. Examine this paragraph from a UN resolution which passed the
General Assembly without a vote December 19, 2012

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; [Draft resolution XVII]

  • 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those
    who disbelieve

  • 7:4.  How many a township have We
    destroyed! As a raid
    by night
    , or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.

    • Our torment
      came upon them
       by
      night or while they were taking their midday nap. ) means, Allah’s
      command, torment and vengeance came over them at night or while taking
      a nap in the middle of the day. Both of these times are periods of rest
      and leisure or heedlessness and amusement.  Nations that were destroyed
  • 8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the
    angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those
    who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all
    their fingers and toes.”

    • …(I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have
      disbelieved.)
      means, `you — angels — support the believers, strengthen their
      (battle) front against their enemies, thus, implementing My command to
      you. I will cast fear,
      disgrace and humiliation over those who defied My command and denied My
      Messenger
      ,
      (so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers
      and
      toes.) strike them on their foreheads to tear them apart and over the
      necks to cut them off, and cut off their limbs, hands and feet….Allah commands the Angels to fight and support the
      Believers
  • 8:60. Against them make ready your strength to
    the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into
    (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others
    besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye
    shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall
    not be treated unjustly.

  • 33:26. And those of the people of the
    Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allah brought them down
    from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so
    that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made
    captives.

    • (and cast terror into their
      heart
      s
      😉 means fear, because they had
      supported the idolators in their war against the Messenger of Allah and
      the one who knows is not like the one who does not know. They had
      terrified the Muslims and intended to kill them so as to gain earthly
      power, but their plans backfired; the idolators ran away and the
      believers were victorious while the disbelievers were losers; where
      they had aimed for glory, they were humiliated. The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah
  • 59:2.
    He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the
    Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Bani An-Nadir) from their
    homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get
    out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from
    Allah! But Allah’s (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they
    expected it not, and He cast terror into
    their hearts
    , so that they destroyed their own dwellings with
    their own
    hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with
    eyes (to see).

    • …Therefore, Allah
      sent His torment down on them
      ;
      it can never be averted, and His appointed destiny touched them; it can
      never be resisted. The Prophet forced them to evacuate and abandon
      their fortified forts that Muslims did not think they would ever
      control. …Then take admonition, O you with eyes.) meaning,
      “Contemplate the end of those who defied Allah’s command, contradicted
      His Messenger and denied His Book. See how Allah’s humiliating
      torment

      struck them in this life, as well as, the painful torment that Allah
      has reserved for them in the Hereafter.”… The End that Bani An-Nadir suffered

  • 59:13. Of a truth ye are stronger (than they)
    because of the terror in their hearts, (sent) by
    God. This is because they are men devoid of understanding.

  • 8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in
    war, punish them severely in
    order to disperse those who are behind them
    , so that they may
    learn a lesson
    .

    • …(then disperse those who are behind them,) by severely
      punishing
      ﴿the captured people﴾ according to Ibn `Abbas, Al-Hasan Al-Basri,
      Ad-Dahhak, As-Suddi, `Ata’ Al-Khurasani and Ibn `Uyaynah. This
      Ayah commands
      punishing them harshly and inflicting casualties
      on them.
      This way, other enemies, Arabs and non-Arabs, will be afraid and take a
      lesson from their end
      ,… Striking Hard against Those Who disbelieve and break
      the Covenants
  •  Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:

    Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

    The Prophet said, “I have been given five things which were not given
    to any one else before me.

    1. Allah made me
    victorious by 
    awe, (by His frightening my
    enemies
    ) for a distance of one month’s journey. .

  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:

    Narrated Abu Huraira:

    Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the
    shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror(cast in the
    hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the
    treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.

    Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now you,
    people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not
    benefit by them).

Brig. S.K. Malik wrote The Qur’anic Concept of War
as a training manual for the army of Pakistan.  His analysis will
help
you to comprehend their strategy. Terror is both a means and an
end.
This paragraph comes from the bottom of page 59. [Emphasis added.]

Terror struck into the hearts of the
enemies is not only

a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into

the opponent’s heart is
obtained, hardly anything is left to be


achieved. It is the
point where the means and the end meet

and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon

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

There is a purpose for the numerous continuing
assaults against Christian faith in this nation.  You will not
fully comprehend it without reading this next quote.

There is one necessary prerequisite for instilling terror: the
destruction of our faith. Islam’s strong faith shields Muslims from
being terrorized. This paragraph comes from page 60. [Emphasis added.]

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


Faith is destroyed.
Psychological dislocation is temporary;

spiritual 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, 


it
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


the inherent strength to ward off terror from
us and to enable


us
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.

For those seeking further details:

http://infidelsunited.com/documents/2944/172/shari-ah-blasphemy-law-gets-un-endorsement-again

March 23, 2012 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping…


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

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

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


current resolutions

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

  • A/C.3/66/L.48/Rev.1
  • Promotion and protection of human rights: human
    rights questions, including alternative approaches
    for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights
    and fundamental freedoms
    • Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based
      on religion or belief
6. Strongly condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of
print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means;
10. Also emphasizes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this
may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion
or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned;
(b) Incidents of religious hatred, discrimination, intolerance and violence,
which may be manifested by the derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and
stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief;

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

advocacy of religious hatred

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

no religion should be equated with terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

I will cast terror.

Allah cast terror.

Jews more afraid of Moe than of Allah

to strike terror

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

victory through terror

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

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

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

 

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

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

(f) Adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence
based on religion or belief;
(g) Understanding the need to combat denigration and the negative religious
stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and
harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through,
inter alia, education and awareness-raising;

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

education

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

incidents of intolerance

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

advocacy of hatred

Recall the remarks of Ban Ki-moon on Fitna.

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

 

incitement to imminent violence

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

religious profiling

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

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

Take Action!

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

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

November 27, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Defamation of Religions vs Negative Stereotyping: SCIRF Gets It Wrong


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

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

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

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

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

intolerance

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

stereotyping

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

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

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

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

protects individuals

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

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

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

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

education

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

concrete details

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

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

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

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

to strike terror

Allah cast
terror

You are more awful as a fear


victorious with terror

I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast
terror

You are more awful as a fear


victorious with terro

I will cast terror

to strike terror

Allah cast
terror

You are more awful as a fear


victorious with terro

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

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

concrete examples

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

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

Ban Ki-moon also condemned Fitna.

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

 

incitement ?

Fitna

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

Motoons

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

Quran burning

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

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

Ihsanoglu’s jaundiced view

 

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

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

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

 

legal foundation

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

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

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

Shari’ah

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

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

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

You’ve Been Mooned: Combating Defamation of Religions


The Secretary General of the United Nations issued his annual report on combating defamation of religions [Islam] September 23.  I present a link to the report below, along with several important excerpts. I have also included a list of links to various documents referenced in the report.

A/66/372
Combating defamation of religions
Report of the Secretary-General

This issue came to the front burner in 1999 when the HRC passed the original resolution combating defamation of Islam.  Because of the ensuing  controversy, subsequent resolutions substituted religions for Islam in their titles but their contents belie the distinction without a difference.  My sources confirm the original title, but the document linked above lacks it; I presume it has been bowdlerized.

It is difficult to find the resolution; in my search for it, I found an important quote attributed to Masood Khan, representing Pakistan at the UN.

“Stereotyping of any religion as propagating violence or its association with terrorism constitutes defamation of religion. It unfortunately breeds a culture of hatred, disharmony and discrimination,”

There is one little problem: the element of falsity.

noun

the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the goodreputation of another, as by slander or libel;
calumny: She suedthe magazine for defamation of character. [Emphasis added]

 

“Islam promotes violence”

“Islam promotes violence” is not defamatory if it is true.  “Terrorism is an Islamic tactic” is not defamatory if it is true.  Those statements do not defame Islam or stereotype Muslims unless they are false.

“Islam promotes violence” is either true or false. The veracity of the statement can be verified by reference to Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.  Allah said that he ordained jihad for Muslims.

2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.

Hilali & Khan included a definition of jihad in a parenthetical expression. They give a fuller definition in their footnote to 2:190Islamic law defines jihad as “to war against non-Muslims”.  Islamic law declares annual military expeditions against disbelievers to be a “communal obligation”.  Al-Shafi’i put it this way:

“The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims’ interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse.”

Al-Ghazali said something similar:

one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year

Islamic law says that the caliph “The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians… ” In the next section (O9.9) it says that the caliph “fights all other peoples until they become Muslim”.   Why would Islamic law  make such statements?   Only because of what Allah & Moe said and did.   “Ordained” was not Allah’s last word on the subject.   “Fight them“, “fight those who“,  “Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you” . Moe said that he was “ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.”

What did Moe do to implement those jihad imperatives?  He dictated and dispatched extortion letters, and followed up with his army.  See. for example, the letter to the Jews at Khaibar, and the oral tradition about his raid on them.

Examine the critical quote again, because I have a prime example for you: “Islam promotes violence”.  This is the heading from Book 21 of Malik’s Muwatta:  “Section: Stimulation of Desire for Jihad”  The title of Riyad us-Saliheen, Book 11, Chapter 234 is “Obligation of Jihad”.  It quotes the relevant ayat & ahadith with commentary.

Islam is intrinsically violent, by design. It has not been perverted, distorted nor hijacked; it promotes violence because violence was Moe’s source of income.  Doubt this?  How did Allah make Moe wealthy?

This is not defamation of Islam because it is truthful, proven so by Islam’s own canon.  This is not stereotyping of Muslims because Allah stated their obligations, defined believers as those who “fight in” his cause, promised them Paradise if they do and Hell if they don’tIslam is all or nothing, Muslims are not allowed to select the verses they like.

“Terrorism is an Islamic tactic.”

Most of the Qur’anic references to terror are concerned with what Allah will do to when the world ends. Those are not important to this discussion; the others are. Allah said that he would cast terror.  He said that he cast terror. He said that the Jews were more afraid of Moe and his army than of him.

Islam Awakened presents a table of 37 parallel translations. Here are some interesting samples from 8:57.

  • to strike fear
  • then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear
  • deal with them in such a manner that those that follow them should abandon their designs and may take warning
  • use them to frighten off anyone who comes in their rear
  • set an example of their humiliation serving as a deterrent
  • make a fearsome example of them
  • disperse thou through them those behind them,
  • make a harsh example of them
  • deal with them in such a manner as to deter those behind them
  • (by inflicting an exemplary punishment upon them) disperse those behind them
  • make them a fearsome example
  • so as to strike terror among them
  • then thereby strike fear in those that are behind them
  •  strike terror in those that are behind them
  • make of them a fearsome example

8:60 is another prime source of terror references.

  • to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies
  • to strike terror into the hearts and minds of Allah’s enemy
  • you terrorize/terrify with it God’s enemy
  •  to strike terror thereby
  •  so that you may strike terror into the hearts of your enemy
  • Cause terror with this (war readiness) amongst the enemy of Allah
  •  so that you strike terror into the enemies of Allah
  • to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah
  •  that you may strike terror in (the hearts of) the enemies of God
  • whereby you may frighten the enemy of ALLAH
  • to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God
  • you shall strike terror through it
  • to threaten the enemy of Allah
  •  that you may overawe the enemies of Allah
  • whereby ye may strike a terror into the enemy of God,
  • whereby ye may strike terror into the enemy of God

Moe also had something to say about how he was made victorious:  ” Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey. “; “I have been made victorious with terror “. Who associated Islam with terrorism?

Back to the report, this paragraph quotes from another big title officer. [Emphasis added.]

79. In March 2011, the Office was informed that church members of the Dove
World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, burned a copy of the Koran. The
incident elicited strong condemnation on the part of the United States Government
and religious leaders from different faiths across the world. It also resulted in
violent reactions, including the killing of United Nations staff and others in
Afghanistan. Both the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-
General replied to letters from the Organization of the Islamic Conference
condemning those acts, which divided peoples and societies, and reaffirming the
collective interest of the international community in countering acts of intolerance.
The Secretary-General also condemned the incident and said that such actions
cannot be condoned by any religion. He also condemned the killing of the United
Nations staff in response. In addition, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on
freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of
racism sent joint communications about those incidents.

Qur’an burning

Pastors Terry & Sapp hosted a moot trial of the Qur’an, conducted in Arabic and spanning four hours prior to the burning.  The trial included a qualified Imam and several expert witnesses, at least two of whom are converts from Islam to Christianity.  Why would they find the Qur’an “guilty” of inciting violence?

The violent reactions did not result from the trial & burning of the Qur’an, they resulted from rabble rousing Imams spewing hatred at Jumah Salat.  Check out the day and time of those riots. They occurred after Friday prayers.

UN staff had nothing to do; no connection to the trial & burning of the Qur’an in Florida.  There is no logical relationship between the two acts.   Peoples and societies are divided by the belief of some that they have a divine obligation to conquer the rest.  What did Allah & Moe say that might give them that conceited idea?

Qur’an burning is an act of outrage, not intolerance.  The Qur’an does not tolerate the existence of disbelievers. Our right to live and worship as we choose or not is the primary issue at stake.  Islam’s canon denies those rights, inciting outrage which is expressed by incinerating Qur’ans.

The trial & burning of the Qur’an was not condoned by Christianity, it was performed by two pastors and their congregation.  They burned the book which curses them, condemns them to Hell and commands Muslims to wage war upon them.

¶79 is an obvious demand for legislation to prohibit criticizing Islam & burning Qur’ans.  It blames the innocent for the independent criminal actions of the guilty.

81. General Comment No. 34 recognizes that “freedom of opinion and freedom of
expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person …
they constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society”. It
further recognizes that “freedoms of opinion and expression form a basis for the full
enjoyment of a wide range of other human rights”.
82. The General Comment also expounded the extent of lawful restrictions that
can be imposed on the right to freedom of expression, prescribing that any
restrictions to freedom of expression must be compatible with the strict
requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The General Comment also deals with the relationship between
articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
prescribing that “a limitation that is justified on the basis of article 20 must also
comply with article 19, paragraph 3”. On this point, it underscores that “it is only
with regard to the specific forms of expression indicated in article 20 that States
parties are obliged to have legal prohibitions”. In every other case — while the State
is not precluded in general terms from having such prohibitions — in which the
“State restricts freedom of expression, it is necessary to justify the prohibitions and
their provisions in strict conformity with article 19”.

I do not see any sign that Ban Ki-moon shares the opinion of the committee of experts who composed Comment 34.

88. The Special Rapporteurs emphasized the principle that individuals rather than
religions per se are rights-holders. Whereas the debate concerning the dissemination
of expression which may offend the adherents of religions or faiths has throughout
the past 12 years evolved around the notion of “defamation of religions”, they
welcomed the fact that the debate appeared to be shifting to the concept of
“incitement to national, racial or religious hatred”. In his thematic report at the
sixteenth session of the Human Rights Council,3 the Special Rapporteur on freedom
of religion or belief noted that school education could and should contribute to the
elimination of negative stereotypes, which often poison the relationship between
different communities. He stressed that such negative stereotypes had particularly
detrimental effects on minorities and with regard to religious or belief communities.
The Special Rapporteur highlighted the importance of eradicating stereotypes and
prejudices that constitute the root causes of fear, resentment and hatred in order to
prevent violence and human rights abuses.

I presented sufficient evidence to establish the fact that Islam is not defamed by describing its jihad imperatives & promotion of war through carrot and stick doctrines.  If a Muslim goes to war, he goes to Paradise; if not, he goes to Hell.  Stating this fatal fact is not defamatory because it is truthful, based on Surah At-Taubah 38-39 & Surah As-Saff  10-13.

At the time of its publication, Ban Ki-moon described Fitna,  Geert Wilders’ short documentary exposing the nexus between the Qur’an & terrorism as “hate speech” & “incitement”.  It is the Qur’an, not Fitna which constitutes “hate speech” & “incitement” to hatred and violence.

Negative stereotypes

If a Muslim is a believer, he “fights in Allah’s cause”, “killing others and being killed”.  That definition of believer is contained in Surah At-Taubah 111.  Muslims are commanded to “Obey Allah and the Messenger“. Allah commanded them to fight us until only Allah is worshiped; until we are subjugated and submit to extortion.  Are they then Muslims who sit at home?  Surely they are hypocrites, not believers who are only those who join the jihad.

Allah said “Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much. ” How is a Muslim to obey Moe without emulating his exemplary conduct?  What did he say about how he was made victorious?  How did Allah make him wealthy??

You can not be Muslim without being evil. That is a fatal fact, not a negative stereotype. Allah commands obedience, which he rewrds with gardens flowing with rivers of wine and punishes with the fire.  What did he command Muslims to do?  Was there something about cutting off our heads, fingers and toes?  8:12

What did Moe do to the men and adolescent boys of the Banu Qurayzah?  He besieged them for two weeks, when they surrendered he slaughtered them in beautiful downtown Medina.  How in Hell does a Muslim obey Allah and his Messenger without engaging in terrorism & genocide??  This is a fact, not a negative stereotype.  “It is not for a Prophet” that he should hold prisoners for ransom until he has made great slaughter.  This is not negative stereotyping, it is stating the fatal facts as contained in Islam’s canon.   If Allah’s slaves are offended by revelation of these fatal facts, they should break his yoke of slavery and rejoin the human race.

89. The contributions received indicate that States are addressing the upsurge
in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world in various
ways. States and national actors are taking measures to combat these
phenomena and the majority of these actions are in the constitutional and
legislative domain. The principles of equality and non-discrimination as well as
freedom of religion and freedom of expression and opinion are provided for at
the highest level through constitutional enshrinement. Most States have such
provisions on freedom of expression and opinion and freedom of religion and
belief, to varying extents. Some States have prohibitions, inter alia, on the
vilification and desecration of religious symbols, sites, places of worship, and
sacred grounds. In the submissions received, there is often a concurrent
criminal regime for the prohibition of actions infringing the freedom of religion
and belief at the national level. Where advocacy and incitement to hatred is
criminalized, it is often prohibited on several grounds, including racial,
national and ethnic or religious.

 

incitement, intolerance and hatred

On what day of the week and at what time of day do riots, bombing & burning of churches and the homes & business of Christians occur in Africa, Arabia & Asia?  Why on friday?  Why after Jumah Salat?  There is no innocent explanation.  What does Allah tell Muslims to do?  What did Moe do that they must emulate?  Do expressions such as “fight them until” and “be harsh against them” have any meaning for you?  Do you have a brain?  Can you obtain a clue??

freedom of religion

Where in domestic or international law is the right to conquer enshrined?  Muslims are commanded to fight pagans until only Allah is worshiped on a global scale.  Muslims are commanded to fight Jews & Christians until we are subjugated and submit to perpetual extortion.  We must not build or repair churches, display crosses, ring church bells, hold public processions or funerals.

If there is no right to conquer, then there is no right to practice Islam.  Show me, by God, exactly where the right to invade & conquer is enshrined in law other than in Reliance of the Traveller, Hedaya & Risala.

Where in domestic or international law is the right to rape enshrined?  Show me, by God, exactly where it is written that Muslims have a right to sexually exploit capive women except in the Qur’an, hadith, and Shari’ah compiled there from!  God bless you, can you read and comprehend?  What is the meaning of this:

4:24. Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. …

I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, “We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.” [Bukhari 5.59.459]

Moe did not just say he was ordered to fight us, he said that until we become Muslims our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights.  Exactly how in Hell can there be a right to believe that, propagate it and act upon it?  If there is any such right, then all our rights are null and void.  It is therefore impossible that there can be any right to propagate and practice Islam.

freedom of expression

The first amendment to the US Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the freedom of speech.  It therefore remains legal for me to reveal the fatal facts of Islam as documented by its canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.  This is exactly what Ban Ki-moon & co. seek to outlaw.

If we can not accurately name and describe the enemy and his doctrines & practices, then we will be rendered defenseless.  That is their objective.  If you harbor any doubts about this, crack open the Risala & Reliance of the Traveller and start reading.  If the expression “anything impermissible” is too vague for you, turn to O8.7 to see the detailed list of prohibited speech.

91. A number of other actions and measures have been highlighted in the
contributions. The importance of public education in promoting tolerance and
understanding in the public education system was noted. The value of ongoing
public awareness-raising by the State, national human rights institutions,
non-governmental organizations, faith groups and religious organizations, the
media and other partners at the national level especially was underlined. The
media has a significant role, and some contributions highlighted its use in
educating the public about different cultures and religions, in counteracting
contentious political discourse and divisive speech, and as a means for
disseminating balanced information and portrayals, as well as bringing
together groups and adherents of different religions and faiths.

¶91 promotes indoctrination, not education.

promoting tolerance

What could be more  obnoxious?  How can any sentient & self-respecting lover of life & liberty tolerate the arrogant assumption of supremacism which assumes global conquest to be a divine right & mandate?  I can not tolerate that which seeks to disposses & kill me, enslaving my widow and orphans.  I can not accept any suggestion or demand that I should tolerate it.

awareness raising

Ban seeks to criminalize raising awareness of the existential threat of Islam.  He wants the organs of the state to spew propaganda and paint a false image of benign & anodyne religion; the polar opposite of the objective factual reality of Islam.

balanced information

I prefer truthful information that can be objectively evaluated and verified.  That is why I provide links to my sources so that readers can explore the context and verify the quotes.  Allah said “fight them”; Moe said “I am commanded to fight”.  Moe fought in 17 battles and ordered about 60 more in which he did not directly participate.  Sahih Bukhari’s books of Jihad & Expedition describe the circumstances of some of those battles.  The book of Khumus describes how Moe divided the loot.  Tafsirs confirm the obvious meaning of Allah’s jihad imperatives. Shari’ah codifies what Allah said and Moe did.  Africa, Arabia, half of Asia and South East Europe were not conquered by a “religion of peace”  Peace has no part in barbarian conquest.  This subject matter requires truth,  not not malignant malarkey.

External references cited in the report:

October 20, 2011 Posted by | Freedom Of Speech, 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 Defamation of Islam: only the name changed


In the wake of negative publicity over two high level assassinations in Pakistan, the OIC switched tactics, adopting a style suggested by Article 19 and other NGOs.  This new style replaces the ‘defamation of Islam’ concept with ‘negative stereotyping’, ‘stigmatization’, ‘discrimination’ & ‘incitement to violence’ against ‘persons’ based on their religion.

If anyone can find a significant difference between ‘defamation’ and ‘negative stereotyping’, please post it in the comments.

Recall what Ban Ki-moon said about Fitna, the short documentary by Geert Wilders which put the Qur’anic imperatives and Islamic actions side by side for easy comparison. Ban said it was ‘hate speech’ & “incitemen’; that the right of free expression was not involved.

Whenever we bring up the fact that Islam sanctifies & mandates genocidal conquest featuring terrorism as a victorious battle tactic or the fact that its 52 year old founder consumated marriage to 9 year old  Aisha, we will be accused of ‘negative stereotyping’ and ‘inciting’ ‘hatred’ & ‘violence’.  The name has changed, the strategy has not: cut the watchdog’s throat to prevent him from warning of impending danger.

On March 24, the Human Rights Council passed two resolutions by acclamation:

http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/combating_intolerance_neg_steretyping.pdf

http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/A_HRC_16_L.10.pdf

My analysis of those resolutions is in these blog posts:

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization

Freedom of Religion and Belief: For Muslims Only!

Article 19 & SCIRI hail those resolutions as a great victory. In fact they represent a tragic defeat for truth, justice & liberty.  They represent victory of al-Taqiyya over truth.  A skunk dyed solid color still stinks. A rattlesnake with its rattles cut off remains deadly.  These resolutions continue the outrageous demand that Islamic blasphemy law be imposed upon us, making these blog poswts illegal.

If you have any doubts about this fatal fact, consider the statement of  Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC, concerning International Judge the Koran Day. Here are some highlights.

  • “the worst example of extremism”
  • need for a normative approach to discourage such practices
  • Prof. Ihsanoglu urged the international political elite to take the necessary steps with a view to avoiding recurrence of such acts of extremism that could inflame religious sentiments with grave repercussions towards interfaith harmony as well as global peace, security and stability.

Those are code phrases for international and national blasphemy laws, backed up by intimidating threats of riot and war.

The whole ball of feces is predicated upon two false premises:

  1. “Islam is a religion of peace” and an “equally valid path to God”.
  2. “Muslims have a right to practice Islam”.

In fact, Islam is jihad. Jihad is offensive warfare.  Jihad is established as the ‘original religion’ of Islam; commerce & agriculture are stipulated as alternatives to jihad.  Abandoning jihad for commerce or agriculture is cursed by Allah.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

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

Therefore, the right to practice Islam includes a right and demonic mandate to conquer us. It is not possible for such an egregious evil to be a right!  If we have a right to live, secure in our persons, property and liberty, then there is no right to practice  manifest  and propagate Islam.  Choose one, the two can not coexist.

March 24, 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

Irish Law Copied by OIC Defamation Proposal


Having read several articles asserting that  Pakistan’s delegate had, on behalf of the OIC, submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on Elaboration of Complementary Standards,[See also: Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document] a proposal containing the text of Ireland’s new blasphemy legislation, my curiosity was aroused.  I posted a blog comment expressing doubt, and disappointment that the post did not provide a link to the source of the claim.  I prepared to compose a blog post about the issue, but after diligent search, I was unable to find  specific information.

Serendipitous discovery of a document hosted by Article 19 has brought the truth to light, proving  my assumption to be in error. I had assumed that the referenced proposal had been made previous to the recent meeting of the committee. In fact, it was submitted on October 23 and it does, in its first section, include  significant text from the Irish blasphemy statute. If Irish Catholics enacted it into law, it must surely be acceptable, right? Not by my standards!

The quote below comes from  page 11 of the following document: A/HRC/13/55, the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. [The link in the UN document system is broken.] Since the pdf is a scanned image, I used Softifree OCR to convert it to text. I have attempted to edit errors introduced by the conversion process but have left original spelling and syntax intact.I have added bold font emphasis to identify the purloined prose.

Friday, 23-10-2009 PM

‘l`he Chair opened the sixth meeting on Friday, 23 October 2009 in the afternoon, explaining that further consultations were necessary before the Programme of Work could be adopted, The agreement to continue discussion of issues put forward in alphabetical order as recorded in the draft programme of work not yet adopted was therefore extended. Accordingly, the meeting considered the issue of “discrimination based on religion or belief.”

c) Discrimination based on religion or belief.

Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, made the following proposal of text:

  1. States Parties shall prohibit by law the uttering of matters that are grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents to that religion.
  2. States Parties must enact legal prohibitions on publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults, or uses offensive language on matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings, with the aim of protecting their fundamental human rights.
  3. States Parties shall prohibit public insults and defamation of religions, public incitement to violence, threats against a person or a grouping of persons on the grounds of their race, colour, language, religion, nationality, or national or ethnic origin.
  4. States Parties shall provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation, and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, and take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs.
  5. States Parties shall penalize public expressions with racist aims, or of an ideology which claims the superiority of or, or which deprecates or denigrates, a grouping of persons on the grounds of their race, colour, language, religion, nationality, or national or ethnic origin, and enact legal prohibitions on offences in which religious motives are aggravating factors.
  6. States Parties shall apply and reinforce existing laws in order to combat and deny impunity for all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes applied to them, including on the basis of religion of or belief .

The following quote is from page 26 of the Irish statute.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—
(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any
religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion
, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

Of course, there is a little detail which the authors do not tell us about, and which the OIC did not  plagiarize: defenses to the charge.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would
find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.
(4) In this section “religion” does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

The egregious element of subjectivity stands out in both documents. How do you define and measure “grossly abusive or insulting”?   How do you define, measure and establish the existence of “genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value”? How do you establish intent?  Is any nation likely to include, in similar legislation, clearly defined and provable offenses & defenses?

Re-read  the second item in Pakistan’s list. Where did they get the notion of “negative stereotypes”?  Last October, our State Department and Egypt cosponsored the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution. [A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1]

Recognizes the positive contribution that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, particularly by the media, including through information and communication technologies such as the Internet, and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can make to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to preventing human rights abuses, but expresses regret at the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and at the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children, and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content; [Pg. 7, ¶’9]

Boilerplate in  previous resolutions expressed concern about “defamation”. President Obama prefers “negative stereotyping” to “defamation”. The OIC can reluctantly drop its demand for the “defamation” clause, Obama can claim victory, and we loose our freedom of expression.

Lets make a close examination of the proposal to censor critics of Islam.

  • grossly abusive or insulting
  • causing outrage
  • a substantial number
  • matters regarded by followers of
    • any religion or belief
    • sacred or inherent to their dignity
  • aim of protecting their fundamental human rights
  • insults and defamation
  • incitement to violence
  • promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs
  • public expressions with racist aims

Is highly refined  abuse or insult  permissible under the proposed legislation?  How does one determine the difference between gross and refined insult?
By what standard is outrage to be established?   What constitutes a substantial number?

Sanctity is in the mind of the believers?  Why is it not defined by the contents of sacred texts?  How are we to know what everyone considers sacred to their dignity?  In what charter is the  right to be shielded from all potential offense established and enshrined as a fundamental human right?

What constitutes incitement to violence?  According to Ban Ki-moon,  Fitna is incitement to violence.. The only incitement in the video comes from the Qur’an and Imams.  By the UN standard, exposing incitement constitutes incitement.

They are demanding that governments promote tolerance and respect for Islam,  which informed and reasonable people consider intolerable because of its intolerance and violence.

How are “racist aims” to be defined and measured?  Islam is not a race, it afflicts members of several races.  Islam began as a manifestation of Arab supremacism.

One glaring defect stands out in the proposal: subjectivity.  Muslims are set up as judge & jury; states as executioners. The offense exists because they invented it. We are guilty of it because they say we are.  This is a status offense: not being Muslim.

The thirty third ayeh of Surah Al-Ma’idah lists hudud for waging war against Allah. Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir defines that term thusly.

(The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.) `Wage war‘ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. [Emphasis added.]

If you recite a Christian creed, you are guilty of  disbelief, opposing and contradicting Islam and may be sentenced to death.  The OIC is demanding that the UN and its member states enforce that Islamic law against us.  According to Shari’ah, as codified in Reliance of the Traveller, a dhimmi may be killed for several listed offenses including reviling Islam.

O11.10 …-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam

What is impermissible?   The list of acts entailing apostasy includes these items.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
-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;

Among other things, dhimmis are forbidden to recite scripture aloud and display crosses.

O11.5 … -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;

The Ad Hoc Committee is expected to meet in March.  We need to send a clear message  of rejection to the United States Department of State.  This is not an issue amenable to compromise.  Our right of free expression must not be abridged!   When the protocol is published, we must rise up as one with a loud voice and disrespectfully demand that the President not sign it and the Senate not ratify it.

In the meantime, lovers of liberty  have another way to make a clear statement of disrespect and contempt for Islam and demanding effective protection from its evil intentions. The International Qur’an Petition puts the most important evidence before the World Court and prays for injunctive relief. Please sign it and exhort everyone you can hope to influence to sign it and share it with their friends. We must not allow the lamp of liberty to be extinguished forever.

January 18, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

H.R. Clinton: Free Speech


Remarks on the Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century Hillary Rodham Clinton Secretary of State Georgetown University’s Gaston Hall Washington, DC December 14, 2009 In our first session, we cosponsored the successful resolution on Freedom of Expression, a forceful declaration of principle at a time when that freedom is jeopardized by new efforts to constrain religious practice, including recently in Switzerland, and by efforts to criminalize the defamation of religion – a false solution which exchanges one wrong for another. And in the United Nations Security Council, I was privileged to chair the September session where we passed a resolution mandating protections against sexual violence in armed conflict. The Secretary of State packed three lies into the single sentence quoted above. 1. The cited resolution is not a forceful declaration of principle. While it is acclaimed as a rejection of the concept of ‘defamation of religion’, it embraces ‘negative stereotyping’ as a grounds for outlawing expression, a distinction without a difference. The clear intention is to make criticism of Islam a criminal offense. 2. The Swiss ban on minaret construction does not impair practice, it outlaws erection of a symbol of supremacism. I find no mention of minarets in the Hilali & Khan Noble Qur’an translation. I find no reference to the construction of minarets in the four top hadith collections & Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir except to the rebuilding of one destroyed by fire. 3. There is no wrong to exchange; declaration of the fact that Muhammad, founder of Islam, was a terrorist is not wrong, neither is it an act which should be criminalized. While the Motoons exaggerate, they expose reality. Exposing the violent verses of the Qur’an is not wrong, it is an an exposure of intrinsic evil, as in the case of Geert Wilders’ documentary, Fitna. There is no justification for outlawing Fitna and the Motoons. Unlike Islamic scripture, they neither inculcate hatred nor incite violence. The riots which followed publication of the Motoons were incited by incendiary sermons at Juma Salat, not by the Motoons.

December 15, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , , | 1 Comment

%d bloggers like this: