Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regrettable events

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

deliberately meant to

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

defame religions

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

incite

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

hatred

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

discrimination

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

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

violence

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

events that incite hatred

Beirut Embassy bombing

USS Cole bombing

WTC1

WTC2

Beslan Massacre

Mumbai Massacre

London subway bombing

Madrid rail bombing

endanger peaceful coexistence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

number of issues

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

Motoons

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

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

Fitna

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

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

 

incitement

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

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

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

negative stereotyping

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

defamation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defamation of Religions: Background Info.


In remarks about the pending Defamation of Religions resolution, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said this.

“It is important to note that passage of these resolutions by a majority vote beyond the membership of the OIC lends international legitimacy to the OIC position on this issue,”

That confirms the obvious: passing defamation resolutions legitimizes Islam’s malicious malarkey.  Lets drill down to the crucial details.

In his introduction to the OIC Observatory on Islamophobia, March 31 ’08,  Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference, had this to say about Islamophobia.

The Muslim Ummah has noticed with utmost concern the continued attacks by a section of marginal groups and individuals in the West on the most sacred symbols of Islam including the Holy Quran and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in an offensive and denigrating manner, the most recent being the reprints of the blasphemous cartoons by 17 Danish newspapers on February 13, 2008 and the release of the film Fitna by a Dutch Parliamentarian on March 27, 2008. This apart, Muslims continue to be stereotyped, discriminated and profiled in many Western countries that have contributed to the issue. [Emphasis added.]

Notice that the argument begins with an ad hominem argument: “marginal groups and individuals”.  Ihsanoglu slapped a “marginal” label on the cartoonists and Geert Wilders.  Note that the cartoons are labeled “blasphemous”. Is that label deserved?  In the cartoons, Moe is depicted as a terrorist; is that blasphemy if the depiction is true?  Consider what codified Islamic oral tradition tells us about the matter.

  • Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey. [Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331]
  • I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy) [Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220] [Emphasis added.]

The cartoons exaggerate, because Moe never possessed a bomb, but they are they blasphemy if their message is true?

Fitna is described as an attack on the Holy Quran because it displayed verses which incite violence, demonstrated their use in kutbah and displayed images of the results. Refer to  Fitna: Supporting Documentation for documentation of the Qur’an verses used in Fitna and Wilders’ address to the Dutch Parliament. Is truthful speech blasphemy?

CNN reported on remarks by the OIC and other Muslims and included a quote from Ban Ki-moon.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the film, calling it “offensively anti-Islamic” while urging calm.

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

Ban Ki-Moon labeled Fitna hate speech and incitement to violence, but the hate speech, incitement & violence depicted in the documentary came from the pens,  tongues & hands of Muslims, not from Geert Wilders, his narrative is objective and accurate.

Payvand’s Iran News reported on remarks by the OIC General Secretary.

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

Pakistan, which frequently introduces the OIC resolutions to the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, was also quoted.

Pakistan said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the Netherlands to prosecute Wilders for defamation and deliberately hurting Muslim sentiments, according to IRNA reporter in Islamabad.

Islam wanted Wilders prosecuted for defamation of Islam. In a few months, he will be defending himself before a Dutch tribunal. The OIC’s resolutions seek the persecution of all who criticize Islam.

 

Examine the remarks of Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers in Uganda, June ’08.

Fourth: The level of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory, which we have established in order to monitor and document all manifestation of this scourge, and to deal with them in an interactive manner.

Taken together, this plan has proven its merit and we have been able to achieve convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam.

In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

The Ten Year Plan proved its merit with the passage of defamation resolutions by the UN.  Note the mention of “red lines that should not be crossed”; that is a thinly veiled threat of physical violence. Does anyone remember what happened to the film maker Theo van Gogh? In the last sentence of the quote, freedom of expression is mentioned, an obvious reference to the  terms of limitation used in the resolutions.

What accounts for Islam’s extreme sensitivity to criticism?  We can find the answer in Islamic law: Reliance of the Traveller‘s Book O [Justice]. O8.7 lists 20 things that entail apostasy. Here are a few relevant  items in that list.

-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;

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

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

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

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

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

One of the rules applied to dhimmis is equally instructive.  What is impermissible to say about Allah or Moe?  According to previously quoted statements, it is impermissible to link Islamic violence with Islamic scripture & tradition.

O11.10

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

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

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

The penalty for apostasy is death [O8.2]. Remember the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the reward offered for killing him?  In a recent protest against Geert Wilders visiting England, Muslims displayed signs saying “Freedom Go To Hell” and “Islam Will Dominate.”.

If we are to have an honest and open debate about domestic, foreign and military policies affecting our national security, we must be able to discuss Islam’s fundamental nature and the relationship between the orthodox doctrines expressed in its scripture, exemplified in its traditions and codified in its jurisprudence.  When liars such as George Bush and Barack Obama assert that Islam is peaceful, we must be free to present proof that they are misrepresenting reality.

UN resolutions condemning defamation of Islam have another unacceptable effect: they reinforce and give undeserved legitimacy to blasphemy laws which are used to persecute religious minorities in lands where Allah’s writ runs such as Pakistan where, if the courts don’t execute you for any “blasphemous” word or act, the mob will.

As we wait for revelation of the contents of the ’10 version, let us examine the history of their campaign to silence their critics.   In 1999, when the original Combating Defamation of Islam resolution was passed, Pakistan made some revealing remarks in the Economic And Social Council.

1. Mr. AKRAM (Pakistan), introducing draft resolution E/CN.4/1999/L.40 on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that were members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that, in the past few years, there had been new manifestations of intolerance and misunderstanding, not to say hatred, of Islam and Muslims in various parts of the world. It was to be feared that those manifestations might become as widespread and endemic as antisemitism had been in the past. There was a tendency in some countries and in the international media to portray Islam as a religion hostile to human rights, threatening to the Western world and associated with terrorism and violence, whereas, with the Quran, Islam had given the world its first human rights charter. No other religion received such constant negative media coverage. That defamation compaign was reflected in growing intolerance towards Muslims. [Emphasis added.]

Examine the emphasized clauses. Reading inter alia, it is obvious that a subliminal link is being drawn between criticism of Islam and Hitler’s holocaust. Akram was setting up a false charge of incipient genocide.  In the second section of emphasized text, there is mention of a media tendency to portray Islam as hostile to human rights, threatening and associated with terrorism and violence.

The clear implication is that those characterizations of Islam are false. Unfortunately, they are not. Islam is hostile to human rights: its doctrine of perpetual war against everyone who does not submit to its demands is a violation of the right to life.  Its declaration that  our blood and property only become sacred to Muslims when we become Muslims denies our human dignity and rights.   These facts are documented in Islam vs Human Rights.

Islam is threatening to the western world. It has a historical track record of invading Spain, Italy, France , Austria, and other western nations.  Islam is associated with violence and terrorism. Two Surahs of the Qur’an are entirely dedicated to warmongering. Four of the six canonical hadith collections have books of Jihad or expedition. Moe preached and practiced terrorism for future generations to emulate.

The Defamation of Islam resolution contained these expressions.

1.             Expresses deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions;

 

2.             Also expresses deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and with terrorism;

 

3.             Expresses its concern at any role in which the print, audio­visual or electronic media or any other means is used to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam and any other religion;

 

4.             Urges all States, within their national legal framework, in conformity with international human rights instruments to take all appropriate measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by religious intolerance, including attacks on religious places, and to encourage understanding, tolerance and respect in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief;

The resolution urged states to enact and enforce extremely broad legislation which would violate our First Amendment.

In ’05, the resolution complained of  involvement of political parties and use of the internet to communicate facts about Islam.  In the spring of ’09, the resolution included this boilerplate.

14. Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and encourages States, in their follow-up to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,7 to include aspects relating to national or  ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in their national plans of action and, in this context, to take forms of multiple discrimination against minorities fully into account;

15. Invites all States to put into practice the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief;3

16. Urges all States to 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, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs and the understanding of their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

If we document the fact that Islam inculcates hatred and incites violence, we are accused of “incitement to religious hatred”.  Turn back to review Ban Ki-moon’s incendiary remarks about Fitna.  There is no excuse for that sort of bigotry. There is no excuse for demands to enshrine it in national & international law.

 

The following list is included to assist those who desire to delve deeper into the history and philosophy of the defamation resolutions.

UN documents listed in the footnotes of  Defamation of Religions” The End of Pluralism?, published by the Beckett Fund

Other relevant  documents of interest:

November 3, 2009 Posted by | United Nations | , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

   

%d bloggers like this: