Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

UN Reaffirms that: terrorism cannot and should not be associated with Islam


A/68/L.50

The United Nations Global Counter Terrorism  Strategy Review, submitted by the President of the General Assembly, continues the obnoxious spew of camel excrement.

Reaffirming that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any
religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group,

Distilled to its essence, the assertion is:

‘terrorism cannot  be associated with Islam’

Only an ignorant Moron or a traitor to the human race will make that obviously false assertion.   Khalid Sheikh Mohammad [May the government execute him and God burn him!] wrote in his confession that the Accursed Abomination was an act of worship and that it was their duty to terrorize us on account of our disbelief.

Terrorism

Terrorism is intended to soften up Islam’s victims, to render them incapable of mounting an effective resistance.  Can you get a God blessed clue?

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).

Why will the Jews and Christians do the Muslims no harm defensively or in retaliation?  Because Allah will terrorize them.

3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers

 

Details

This is not a new topic, the UN passes resolutions bearing similar statements every year and other liars echo the same lie. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I am embedding a previous blog post containing the most vital evidence to disprove the falsity of the UN’s assertion.

View this document on Scribd
Advertisements

June 13, 2014 Posted by | GWOT, Islam, Terror Threat, United Nations | , , | Leave a comment

UN Counter Terrorism: Malignant Malarkey!


A/66/L.53
Draft resolution submitted by the President of the General Assembly
The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy Review

How does anyone expect to solve a serious problem without first identifying it and researching its cause?  The UN can not define terrorism because the OIC member states insist that Islamic attacks against Israel are “legitimate resistance”, not terrorism.

The draft resolution includes boiler plate common to many resolutions:

Reaffirming also that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any
religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group, [Emphasis added.]

That statement is an inversion of truth and morality; part of the problem, not part of the solution.  Terrorism is not an enemy, it is a tactic. Whose tactic is it?
Terrorism is associated with Islam because of egregious statements made in Islam’s canon of scripture & tradition.  Examine the evidence: Allah said that he would cast terror into the hearts of disbelievers.

  • 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers)
  • 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.”

Allah commanded Muslims to treat their victims harshly so as to terrify other prospective victims.

  • 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.

Other translators use more explicit terms.

Another ayeh confirms this one, fitting hand in glove with it, warning other intended victims.

  • 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).

Allah commanded Muslims to maximize military strength to terrify potential enemies.

  • 8:60. And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allah does know. And whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly.

Other translators are more explicit.

Allah cast terror, you have seen one example, another is more graphic concerning the consequences.

  • 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh 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.
  • 33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

Allah promised a great reward to terrorists: extra credit towards an upgrade to their seats in his Celestial Bordello.

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

Any step taken to injure or enrage a disbeliever is a “deed of righteousness”.  On Judgment Day, Allah will weigh their sins against their good deeds. [7:8] [The Meaning of weighing the Deeds] The balance will determine their eternal destination: Celestial Bordello or fire.

Muhammad was not silent concerning terrorism: he bragged about it.

  • 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).

It is clear on the face of the Qur’an & hadith that terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam.  Allah said he would cast terror, cast terror and his messenger was made victorious with terror. During the reign of Zia ul-Haq, Brig. S.K. Malik wrote a strategy manual for the army of Pakistan.  Two quotes stand out like sore thumbs.

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 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.

Who created the association of Islam and terrorism?  The texts leave no doubt: Muhammad deliberately cultivated a reputation for barbarian rapine in the hope  of so terrifying his victims that they would surrender without a fight.  The Qur’anic Concept of War   shows us that  the association continues in modern times.

In his last instructions to the Magnificent Nineteen, Mohamed Atta wrote: “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.” [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/30/terrorism.september113]  Can anyone forget the words from the cockpit voice recorder?

The United Nations denies the identity of the enemy and its use of terrorism as a battle tactic. Instead, it seeks to conceal the fatal facts.   It is not sincerely interested in solving the problem of escalating terrorism; the UN is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

June 29, 2012 Posted by | GWOT, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

No Compulsion in Religion & Defamation from MPAC


http://www.mpac.org/assets/docs/publications/MPAC-defamations-of-religion.pdf

MPAC takes a legalistic & libertarian tack against blasphemy laws, asserting that the Qur’an supports open debate, not compulsion.  Lets look a little deeper, below the surface of a few crucial citations.  [Links added to quotes.]

Let there be no compulsion in religion, the truth stands out clear from error… (2:256)

 Say: O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that
which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye
worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine (109:1-6)

He was not permitted to force people to believe. (17:53-54; 88:21-22)

If the Prophet was commanded directly by God to just advise and persuade, who are we as ordinary
human beings to claim a higher mantle of authority and impose our beliefs on others?

2:256 Tafsir Ibn Kathir  mentions relation to the Ansar, whose children were among the Banu an-Nadir who were exiled from Medina. Unfortunately, Ibn Kathir leaves the story open ended, I suspect that there was an editing error somewhere along the way.  Other tafsirs complete the story and add more details.

Certain women among the Ansar, whose sons died in infancy would swear to raise one who lived as a Jew.  Evidently they farmed their surviving sons out to wet nurses among the Banu an-Nadir.   When Moe drove the Banu an-nadir from their fortifified settlements [59:2, The End that Bani An-Nadir suffered] some of the Answar offspring opted to remain among the exiled Jews. Their mothers ran complaining to Moe, who revealed 2:256 to fit the occasion.  The story finds its fullest explication in these tafsirs:

Mufti Shafi Usmani brings in a related argument not raised by the others in this context: the relationship between non compulsion and jihad, holding that the two are not in conflict.

Keeping this verse in view, some people raise objections. They say
this verse tells us that there is no compulsion in faith, although the
teaching of jihad and qital (fighting) in Islam appears contrary to this
principle.
Looking at this a little carefully, we can find out that the objection
is not valid, since the teaching of jihad and qital in Islam is not to
coerce people into accepting Faith. Had it been so, why would there be
Islamic injunctions of jizyah to provide an umbrella of security for
kuffar (disbelievers) which protects their life, property and honour? […]

It is for this reason that Allah Almighty has ordained that the
fasad created by these people should be removed by jihiid and qitl. So,
killing such people is like the killing of serpents, scorpions and their
harmful likes.

Usmani asserts that jihad is for the purpose of eradicating people who cause fitna, not about compelling them to convert to Islam. Note that he claims that jijya provides security for kuffar, protecting their life and property.  From whom does jizya protect them?  I have three clues for you, and will allow you to draw your own conclusion.

  • These people have been informed of the orders about Jiziya. If you desire that there should be peace and security in the world, obey Allah and His Prophet. Thereafter none in Arabia and Ajam (Iran) shall dare cast an evil eye on you. But the rights of Allah and His Prophet can at no time be waived.

    If you do not accept these terms and set them aside, I do not need your presents and gifts. In that case, I shall have to wage war (to establish peace and security). Its result would be that the big ones shall be killed in war and the commoners shall be taken prisoners. [Letter to the rulers of Aqaba]

  • […]And whoever says: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ saves his wealth and his life from me[…] [Sahih Bukhari 9.92.388]
  • Capitation tax is to be imposed  upon  Kitabees, because  this is mentioned in the Koran: and it is in the same manner to be imposed upon Majoosees, as the prophet imposed capitation-tax upon Majoosees.– Capitation-tax is also to be imposed upon the idolaters of ajim (Persia) this is contrary to the opinion of Shafii, for he argues that destruction is incurred by all infidels; but the legality of abstaining from it, in sconsideration of a capitation-tax, with respect to Kitabees, is known from the word of the Koran, and with respect  to Majoosees, from the traditions; any others, therefore,  than those, (namely idolaters,) remain subject to the original penalty, which is destruction. [Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter VIII, Page 212]

In the matter of Surah Al-Kaafiroon, Tafsir Ibn Kathir informs us that the surah was revealed about Kafirs who challenged Moe to swap religions for a year. Rather than a statement of tolerance, it is a statement of rejection and immunity from their shirk.  [He commanded His Messenger to disavow himself from their religion completely]   Tafsir al-tustari informs us that Surah 109 was abrogated by 9:5; Tafsir al-Jalalayn & Tafsir Ibn Abbas cuncurr, citing   the “command to wage war” and “verses of fighting” respectively.

Surah Al-Kaafiroon  was # 18 in seqeuence of revelation , Surah Al-Baqarah was # 87, both are abrogated by conflicting  ayat in Surah At-Taubah which was next to last in revelation.

Does Surah Al-Isra’ 53-54 forbid compulsion?  Perhaps we should examine the context.

17:53. And say to My slaves (i.e. the true believers of Islâmic Monotheism) that they should (only) say those words that are the best. (Because) Shaitân (Satan) verily, sows disagreements among them. Surely, Shaitân (Satan) is to man a plain enemy.

17:54. Your Lord knows you best, if He will, He will have mercy on you, or if He will, He will punish you. And We have not sent you (O Muhammad ) as a guardian over them.

17:55. And your Lord knows best all who are in the heavens and the earth. And indeed, We have preferred some of the Prophets above others, and to Dawûd (David) We gave the Zabûr (Psalms).

17:56. Say (O Muhammad ): “Call unto those besides Him whom you pretend [to be gods like angels, Iesâ (Jesus), ‘Uzair (Ezra), etc.]. They have neither the power to remove the adversity from you nor even to shift it from you to another person.”

17:57. Those whom they call upon [like ‘Iesa (Jesus) ­ son of Maryam (Mary), ‘Uzair (Ezra), angel, etc.] desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allâh), as to which of them should be the nearest and they [‘Iesa (Jesus), ‘Uzair (Ezra), angels, etc.] hope for His Mercy and fear His Torment. Verily, the Torment of your Lord is something to be afraid of!

17:58. And there is not a town (population) but We shall destroy it before the Day of Resurrection, or punish it with a severe torment. That is written in the Book (of our Decrees)

I do not see mention of compulsion or toleration in that context, but I do see a threat of destruction, before the day of judgment. Perhaps you can find something of interest in Ibn Kathir tafsir of 17:53.

Surah Surah Al-Ghaashiyah 21-22  looks swell until we examine the context. Of course, Muslims, who accuse us of “cherry picking” are prone to engage in selectivity.

88:21. So remind them (O Muhammad ()), you are only a one who reminds.

88:22. You are not a dictator over them.

88:23. Save the one who turns away and disbelieves

88:24. Then Allâh will punish him with the greatest punishment.

Moe is only one who reminds, not a dictator; then comes the exception clause, which MPAC did not cite for us.  Allah will punish the disbelievers.  Of course, punishment is not coercion.  Of course, Ibn Kathir had something to say about that. [The Messenger is only charged with delivering the Message]

(You are not a Musaytir over them.) Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and others said, “You are not a dictator over them.” This means that you cannot create faith in their hearts. Ibn Zayd said, “You are not the one who can force them to have faith.” Imam Ahmad recorded from Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said,
(I have been commanded to fight the people until they say La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped except Allah). So if they say that, they have safeguarded their blood and wealth from me – except for what is rightfully due from it – and their reckoning is with Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.)” Then he recited, (So remind them – you are only one who reminds. You are not a dictator over them -) This is how Muslim recorded this Hadith in his Book of Faith, and At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa’i also recorded it in their Sunans in the Books of Tafsir. This Hadith can be found in both of the Two Sahihs.

you are not a taskmaster over them (a variant reading [for musaytir] has musaytir, that is to say, [not one who has been] given authority over them) – this was [revealed] before the command to struggle [against the disbelievers]. [Tafsir al-Jalalayn]

Moe can’t make us believe, but he has been commanded to wage war upon us until we recite Shahada.  That is a clue for the clueless.    Surah Al-Anfal & Surah At-Taubah contain the jihad imperatives refered to above. Because they were among the last to be revealed, they abrogate earlier verses whith which they are in conflict. [2:106 & 16:101 establish the rule of abrogation.] The jihad imperatives are  commands to fight idolaters until only Allah is worshiped and people of the book until they are subjugated & extorted.

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.

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.

Those imperatives are codified in Shari’ah, best exemplified by Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9.8 & 9.9. No compulsion?  Fighting Arabian pagans until they become Muslim is not compulsion.

O9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi’ (y21), 6.48-49) ).

I am not arguing with MPAC about the negative impliciations of the “defamation of religions” meme. The points raised fy Freedom House and other critics are valid, based on solid facts and logic.  I simply pointed out their practice of kitman: deception by obfuscation.   But this subject is raised in the context of two resolutions passed this year by the Human Rights Council and General Assembly.

The name has changed; the language has changed, but the meme has not changed. The OIC & UN have not abandoned “combating defamation of Islam”.

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

¶5(f) on page 5 of Draft resolution XVII,  “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.

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.”

The resolutions demand passage and enforcement of legislation to criminalize criticmsm of Islam.  Another resolution, flying below the radar, passed the GA by concensus, without a vote.  ¶10, on page 3 of Draft resolution XVIII,  emphasizes that Islam must not be equated with terrorism   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.

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;

The obvious was confirmed by our own Department of State last summer when they met the OIC at Istanbul to discuss implementation of the resolution.  This quote from the Secretary of State requires a little decoding. for the meaning of “intolerance” Refer back to the quote from Ban Ki-moon. [Following quotes from OIC Journal.]

“Together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits
religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we
are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight
intolerance wherever it occurs.

Our Ambassador to the HRC piled on.

A positive aspect of Resolution 16 /18 is that it did not
pit the principle of freedom of religion against freedom of
expression, said Ambassador Donahoe, rather it combined
them. “We believe that through free expression we are better
able to combat intolerance.”

In response to OIC Journal query on defining what would
constitute incitement to hate, she clarified that in the US there
is a single case where freedom of expression can be restricted
or prohibited by the State, and that is when “incitement to
eminent violence”.

In this context, she pointed out that the President, the
Secretary of State and several public officials went out on a
limb to publically condemn ‘Burn the Quran Day’ to show
that such abominable acts are not accepted. “When you have
the President, the Secretary of State and public figures jointly
condemning that, it will be more effective than throwing
that pastor in jail. I believe the same is true for the hateful
cartoons (of the Prophet). We should all be joining together
in conveying our disgust with such intolerance.”

“Intolerance” and “incitement to violence” mean: International Burn the Qur’an Day and the Motoons, just as Ban mischaracterized Fitna.

Allah had something to say about blasphemy.

3:78. And verily, among them is a party who distort the Book with their tongues (as they read), so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book, and they say: “This is from Allâh,” but it is not from Allâh; and they speak a lie against Allâh while they know it.

7:37. Who is more unjust than one who invents a lie against Allâh or rejects His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)? For such their appointed portion (good things of this worldly life and their period of stay therein) will reach them from the Book (of Decrees) until, when Our Messengers (the angel of death and his assistants) come to them to take their souls, they (the angels) will say: “Where are those whom you used to invoke and worship besides Allâh,” they will reply, “They have vanished and deserted us.” And they will bear witness against themselves, that they were disbelievers.

6:93. And who can be more unjust than he who invents a lie against Allâh, or says: “I have received inspiration,” whereas he is not inspired in anything; and who says, “I will reveal the like of what Allâh has revealed.” And if you could but see when the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers, etc.) are in the agonies of death, while the angels are stretching forth their hands (saying): “Deliver your souls! This day you shall be recompensed with the torment of degradation because of what you used to utter against Allâh other than the truth. And you used to reject His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) with disrespect! ”

10:17. So who does more wrong than he who forges a lie against Allâh or denies His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)? Surely, the Mujrimûn (criminals, sinners, disbelievers and polytheists) will never be successful!

Moe’s reaction to criticism is instructive: he had them murdered. I direct doubters & dissenters to List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad.

 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.

Killing critics of Islam is not just sunnah, it is Islamic law. I invite doubters & dissenters to examine the relevant passages of  reliance of the Traveller, the Shafi’ite manual of fiqh, to verify the fatal fact. A conquered Jew or Christian, remaining in Dar al-Islam as a Dhimmi, who “mentions something impermissible” about Islam, reverts to the status of a prisoner of war who may be killed.

  • Apostasay: penalty: O8.1
  • definition: O8.7
  • application to Dhimmis O11.10
  • penalty applied to Dhimmis: O9.14

December 26, 2011 Posted by | free speech, Islam, Jihad, Political Correctness, Qur'an, United Nations | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

UN Censorship: Outlawing Criticism of Islam


On October 27, ’11, the United Arab Emirates, acting on behalf of the OIC, submitted a draft resolution entitled “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief”.

With the exception of one additional conjunction and preposition, the title is identical to that of   A/HRC/RES/16/18 passed this spring. A/C.3/66/L.47, currently in the 3rd Committee,  is two pages longer and has one more enumerated paragraph.
There are major problems in the list of affirmations.

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,

The OIC  is not acting in good faith; they can not simultaneously base their domestic legislation on Shari’ah and reaffirm the obligation to guarantee equal protection of the law because Shari’ah:

  • Subjects indigenous Jews & Christians to a punitive, humiliating tax called jizya.  Reliance of the Traveller, Book O11.4
  • Disqualifies Jews & Christians from testifying against Muslims. O24.2(c)
  • Prohibits construction & maintenance of churches.  O11.5-7
  • Prohibits public manifestation of non-Muslim religions. O11.5-6
  • Sets the indemnity for wrongful death of a non-Muslim as a fraction that paid for a Muslim.  O4.2
  • Prohibits a divorced non-Muslim woman from obtaining child custody if her children are Muslims because their father was. M13.2(c).
Reaffirming further that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated,

The right to life is primary, without it, all other rights are null and void.  Islam implicitly denies the right to life: “And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us” Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. Islamic law explicitly permits killing non-Muslim men taken captive. O9.14

On page 218 of al-Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1, we find the clearest statement of the fatal fact of Islam.   “Secondly, capitation-tax is a substitute for destruction in respect to the infidels,”.

My First Amendment right of free speech which prohibits the government from criminalizing the truthful declarations made above, does not in any way or to any extent detract from a Muslims ‘right’ to ‘practice his religion’.  Free speech does not prevent or impair Iman, Salat, Saum, Hajj or Zakat.  It simply permits uttering & publishing truthful statements about an institution inimical to our lives & liberties.

The problem is that the practice of Islam entails jihad, which is defined as “to war against non-Muslims” O9.0.  “Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, ” 9:123. Islam is all or nothing, inseverable “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.” 2:85.  Jihad is a communal obligation binding on all eligible adult male Muslims and must be performed in every year. O9.1

Islam can not be practiced in obedience to Allah and in emulation of Moe without voiding the human rights of kuffar.  It is therefore impossible that a right to practice Islam can exist.   Stating this fatal fact is not defamatory neither is it negative stereotyping nor is it inciting violence. It is a simple statement of fact, which, if acknowledged by the legislative and executive branches of our government, must result in removal of the umbrella of First Amendment protection from Islam.

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,

I hope that I am not the only one who perceives the irony in that sentence.  The authors intend that sentence to mean what it says in the Orwellian sense, they do not intend it to have the meaning the words denote.  To the authors of the resolution, “combating religious intolerance” means  combating resistance to Islam.

If religious intolerance is to be combated then it is necessary that Islam be combated, because Islam is  so extremely intolerant that it mandates perpetual war to establish a global monopoly for itself in 8:39.  The Qur’an refers to Jews & Christians as the “worst of living creatures” in 98:6, and curses us in 9:30.    Since the Qur’an is perfected 5:3 & immutable 10:64, Islam can not be reformed, it must be eliminated.

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,

Look below the surface of that run on sentence, to the embedded false premise: promotion of tolerance of Islam.  Text books used in schools throughout Arabia quote 3:85 and the infamous genocide hadith Sahih Bukhari 4.53.177. They demand that we convert our schools into Islamic indoctrination centers.

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;

To discover the real meaning of that run on sentence, read this annual Islamophobia report published by the OIC: 4th OIC observatory report on Islamophobia (May 2010 to April 2011) .  See what they complain about most in their monthly reports. Note the prominent mention of anti-Islamic political parties in Europe.

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;

“Advocacy of religious hatred..incitement to… violence” describes the Qur’an, as anyone knows who has read Surahs Al Fatiha, Al-Ma’idah , Al-Anfal and At-Taubah.    Does anyone believe that Islam seeks to enforce Article 4 of ICERD against itself?

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

Is the prima facie meaning of that sentence valid?  Only if the organ of cognition is the anus, not the brain!  U.N. documents favor the term “inter alia”, meaning between the words. In this case, it is necessary to refer to previous statements. Ban Ki-moon’s statement about the short documentary by Geert Wilders speaks volumes.

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 Ban, Fitna is “hate speech” and  “incitement to violence”.  The hate speech displayed in Fitna has three sources: the Qur’an, hadith & raving Imams. The violence displayed in Fitna is Islamic violence.  At no point does Wilders express hatred or incite violence in his documentary.

On March 1 of ’11, Ekmeleddin Ishanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC, addressed the HRC.  I will add emphasis to make a few significant phrases stand out.

OIC has a principled position against defamation of any
religion, dehumanization of the followers or denigration of
symbols sacred to all religions. The developments
including the ban of construction of minarets, the attempts
towards burning of Quran and the use of Islamophobia as
an instrument of electoral politics are ominous. There is an
urgent need to initiate and sustain what I would like to term
as ‘preventive cultural diplomacy’. We need to move
beyond event based calls for action to create spaces for
structured engagement. The Human Rights framework
provides with a concrete basis for this engagement. We
believe that the workshops on incitement to hatred under
the Durban mandate constitute and important avenue for a
synthesis aimed at bridging the divergence of views. I
reiterate my call, during the 15th Session of the Council,
for establishing an Observatory at the Office of the High
Commissioner to monitor acts of defamation of all religions
or incitement to hatred or violence on religious grounds as
a first step towards concerted action at the international
level. Let me also recall that I had outlined eight areas of
action for consideration by states, at both the national and
international level, with a view to dealing with defamation
issue. I am pleased to note that the proposal has found some
resonance.

The OIC has shown flexibility in negotiations with our
partners over the past couple of years and we would now
expect some reciprocity. The perception that supporting
the resolution would throttle one’s right to freedom
expression is only a myth. Freedom of expression will
always be upheld but it cannot be allowed to be a tool to
use for inciting fear and hate.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I felt
encouraged by some positive and constructive proposals in
finding a way forward on the text of the Resolution. If there
is a genuine political will on the part of all to address the
issue of incitement of hatred against religions in earnest, I
am confident that we can achieve a consensus.

Another speech to the HRC, by Pakistan’s Ambassador, reveals even more, with greater clarity. I reproduce it here, from an earlier blog post in which I took it on point by point.

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.

Burning a Qur’an after a mock trial is not hate speech, neither is it incitement to violence.  Congressional hearings on “radicalization” are not hate speech, neither are they incitement to violence.

This blog post is not hate speech, neither is it incitement to violence. It is a warning to American citizens about a clear, proximate and persistent threat to our right of free speech.  The OIC, acting through the United Nations, seeks to impose its blasphemy law on the entire human race.  Reliance of the Traveller, Book O8.7 lists 20 “acts that entail” Apostasy.  Any and all criticism and questioning of Allah, Moe & Islam is prohibited under penalty of death.

Previous resolutions expressly condemned association of Islam with “terrorism and human rights violations”. But Allah said that he would and did cast terror and Moe said that he was “made victorious with terror“.   The expressions have changed, the agenda has not. We have won no victory, we have misinterpreted a defeat.

Please visit http://wwwcongress.org/  and send a message to Obamination, your Representative & Senator demanding a NO! vote on this vile resolution.

Related blog posts:

November 16, 2011 Posted by | Islam, United Nations | , , , , , | 3 Comments

UN Can’t Define International Terrorism


While the United Nations pretend to condemn and eliminate international terrorism, they don’t know what they are condemning and eliminating.  The United Nations are unable to reach consensus on a definition of international terrorism.   In this post, I will delve into  the divisive issue of defining international terrorism.

Mr. Yousef Sultan Laram, Deputy Permanent Representative of the State of Qatar to the United Nations raised the issue of definition of terms.

An important step to combat terrorism would be to find a clear and realistic  definition to this phenomenon. In this regard, we must distinguish between terrorism and legitimate resistance movements against foreign occupation.

When Irgun bombed the King David Hotel, was that an act of terrorism or an act of legitimate resistance to foreign occupation?  Was Great Britain occupying Israel or not? Did the Balfour Declaration promise Israel independence in their national homeland or not?

The Permanent Mission of Kazakhstan on behalf of the OIC Group worded the same concept a bit differently.

We reaffirm our determination to make every effort to reach a consensus agreement on the draft convention, by resolving the outstanding issues including those related to the legal definition of terrorism, particularly on the distinction between terrorism and the struggle for the rights of self-determination by people under foreign occupation, and colonial or alien domination, as well as on the scope of the acts covered by the draft Convention.

China approaches the issue very carefully, by indirection.

SCO Member States emphasizes that counter-terrorism cooperation should be conducted on the principle of respect for international law including state sovereignty and without any “double standards” .

The “double standards” reference must be to Islam’s arrogant implication that  their bloody murders ain’t terrorism.  When they blow up an Israeli school bus or a British subway, that ain’t terrorism, its “legitimate resistance”.  Their arrogance is exposed by two logical fallacies.

When Irgun bombed the King David Hotel, was that an act of terrorism or an act of legitimate resistance to foreign occupation? No, it was both.  Was Great Britain occupying Israel or not? Did the Balfour Declaration promise Israel independence in their national homeland or not?  The resistance was legitimate, the attack was terrorism. If we accept Islam’s definition, the bombing of the King David Hotel was not terrorism.

Israel is occupied by Arab Muslims, not occupying them. The Levant belongs to Jews, it is their homeland, not the Arab’s.  Caliph Umar’s conquest in 638 does not confer legitimate title; Israel’s recovery of Judea & Samaria as a consequence of Islam’s genocidal attack in 1967 conveys legitimate title.

Afghanistan is occupied by NATO forces as a consequence of its complicity in the Accursed Abomination. Resistance to that invasion and occupation is not legitimate.

October 6, 2011 Posted by | GWOT, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , | Leave a comment

Un: Eliminating International Terrorism


Eye on the UN published links to three statements to the UN’s 6th Committee on the subject of  measures to eliminate international terrorism. This post will concentrate on publishing those links, which appear below.

In view of the recent 10th anniversary of the Accursed Abomination and several recent foiled plots, the subject absolutely must be moved to the front burner.

Instead of republishing each of the statements, I will let you read them, then I will tear them apart point by point in a series of posts.  Here are the links to those pdf files.

Those statements contain references to external documents, which, in turn reference others.  So that the inordinately curious may explore the issue in greather depth, I present a list of what I consider to be the most important of those references with the links I was able to find.

October 6, 2011 Posted by | GWOT, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , | Leave a comment

Obamination: Spewing Feces in the General Assembly


Obamination: Spewing Feces in the General Assembly

President
Barack Hussein Obama converted the General Assembly of the United
Nations into another re-election campaign atump with a spew of snake
excrement designed to appeal to his base of electoral support:
Communists, both national and international.

Due to the target rich nature of this spew, I will
place my comments in an enumerated list, linking them to superscripts
in the spew. Click a superscript to read the associated comment, then
tap your Backspace key to return to your place in the spew.

 

Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United
Nations General Assembly

United
Nations

New York, New York

10:12
A.M. EDT

 

PRESIDENT
OBAMA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies
and gentlemen: It is a great honor1 for me to be here today. I would like
to talk to you about a subject that is at the heart of the United
Nations — the pursuit of peace2
in an imperfect world.



War
and conflict have been with us since the beginning of civilizations.
But in the first part of the 20th century, the advance of modern
weaponry led to death on a staggering scale. It was this killing that
compelled the founders of this body to build an institution that was
focused not just on ending one war, but on averting others; a union of
sovereign states that would seek
to prevent conflict
3, while also addressing its causes4.



No
American did more to pursue this objective than President Franklin
Roosevelt. He knew that a victory in war was not enough. As he said at
one of the very first meetings on the founding of the United Nations,
“We have got to make, not merely peace, but a peace that will last5.”



The men and women who built this institution understood that peace is more than just the absence
of war6
.
A lasting peace — for nations and for individuals —
depends on a sense of justice
and opportunity, of dignity and freedom
. It depends on struggle and sacrifice, on compromise,
and on a sense of common
humanity
.



One
delegate to the San Francisco Conference that led to the creation of
the United Nations put it well: “Many people,” she said, “have talked
as if all that has to be done to get peace was to say loudly and
frequently that we loved peace and we hated war. Now we have learned
that no matter how much we love peace and hate war, we cannot avoid
having war brought upon us if there are convulsions in other parts of
the world.”



The fact is peace is hard7.
But our people demand it8.
Over nearly seven decades, even as the United Nations helped avert a
third world war, we still live in a world scarred by conflict and plagued by poverty9.
Even as
we proclaim our love for peace and our hatred of war, there are still convulsions in our world that
endanger us all
.



I took office at a time of two wars for the United States. Moreover,
the violent extremists who
drew us into war
10in the first place — Osama bin Laden, and his al Qaeda
organization
— remained at large. Today, we’ve set a new direction.



At
the end of this year, America’s military operation in Iraq will be
over. We will have a normal relationship with a sovereign nation that
is a member of the community of nations. That equal partnership11
will be strengthened by our support for Iraq — for its government and
for its security forces, for its people and for their aspirations.



As
we end the war in Iraq, the United States and our coalition partners
have begun a transition in Afghanistan. Between now and 2014, an increasingly capable Afghan
government12
and
security forces will step forward to take responsibility for the
future of their country. As they do, we are drawing down our own
forces, while building an enduring
partnership
with the Afghan people.



So
let there be no doubt: The tide of war is receding. When I took office,
roughly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the
end of this year, that number will be cut in half, and it will continue
to decline. This is critical for the sovereignty of Iraq and
Afghanistan. It’s also critical to the strength of the United States as
we build our nation13
at
home.

Moreover,
we are poised to end these
wars from a position of strength14
.
Ten years ago, there was an open wound and twisted steel, a broken
heart in the center of this city. Today, as a new tower is rising at
Ground Zero, it symbolizes New York’s renewal, even as al Qaeda is under more pressure15
than ever before. Its leadership has been degraded. And Osama bin16
Laden
, a man who
murdered thousands of people from dozens of countries, will never endanger the peace of the world
again.



So, yes, this has been a difficult decade. But today, we stand at a
crossroads of history with the chance to move decisively in the direction of
peace
17.
To do so, we must return to the wisdom of those who created this
institution. The United Nations’ Founding Charter calls upon us, “to
unite our strength to maintain
international peace and security
.” And Article
1 of this General Assembly’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights
reminds us that, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity
and in rights18.”
Those bedrock beliefs — in the responsibility of
states, and the rights of men and women — must be our guide19.




And
in that effort, we have reason to hope. This year has been a time of
extraordinary transformation. More nations have stepped forward to
maintain20
international peace and security. And more individuals are claiming their
universal right to live in freedom and dignity21.




Think
about it: One year ago, when we met here in New York, the prospect of a
successful referendum in South Sudan was in doubt. But the
international community overcame old divisions to support the agreement
that had been negotiated to give South Sudan self-determination. And
last summer, as a new flag went up in Juba, former soldiers laid down
their arms, men and women wept with joy, and children finally knew the
promise of looking to a future that they will shape.



One
year ago, the people of Côte D’Ivoire approached a landmark election.
And when the incumbent lost, and refused to respect the results, the
world refused to look the other way. U.N. peacekeepers were harassed,
but they did not leave their posts. The Security Council, led by the
United States and Nigeria and France, came together to support the will
of the people. And Côte D’Ivoire is now governed by the man who was elected
to lead
22.

One
year ago, the hopes of the people of Tunisia were suppressed. But they chose the dignity of peaceful
protest over the rule of an iron fist.

A vendor lit a spark that took his own life, but he ignited a movement.
In a face of a crackdown, students spelled out the word, “freedom.” The
balance of fear shifted from the ruler to those that he ruled. And now
the people of Tunisia are preparing for elections that will move them one step closer to the democracy
that they deserve
23.



One
year ago, Egypt had known one President for nearly 30 years. But for 18
days, the eyes of the world were glued to Tahrir Square, where
Egyptians from all walks of life — men and women, young and old,
Muslim and Christian — demanded their universal
rights24
. We
saw in those protesters the moral force of
non-violence
that has lit the world from Delhi to Warsaw, from
Selma to South Africa — and we knew that change had come to Egypt
and to the Arab world
.

One
year ago, the people of Libya were ruled by the world’s longest-serving
dictator. But faced with bullets and bombs and a dictator who
threatened to hunt them down like rats, they showed relentless bravery.
We will never forget the words of the Libyan who stood up in those
early days of the revolution and said, “Our words are free now.” It’s a
feeling you can’t explain. Day after day, in the face of bullets and
bombs, the Libyan
people refused to give back that freedom25
.
And when they were threatened by the kind of mass atrocity that often
went unchallenged in the last century, the United Nations lived up to
its charter. The Security Council authorized all necessary measures to prevent a massacre.
The Arab League called for this effort; Arab nations joined a NATO-led coalition that
halted Qaddafi’s forces
in their tracks.

In
the months that followed, the will of the coalition proved unbreakable,
and the will of the Libyan people could not be denied. Forty-two years
of tyranny was
ended
in six months. From Tripoli to Misurata to Benghazi —
today, Libya is
free
.
Yesterday, the leaders of a new Libya took their rightful place beside
us, and this week, the United States is reopening our embassy in
Tripoli.

This
is how the international community is supposed to work — nations
standing together for the sake of peace and security,
and individuals claiming
their rights
.
Now, all of us have a responsibility to support the new Libya — the
new Libyan government as they confront the challenge of turning this
moment of promise into a just and lasting peace
for all Libyans
.



So this has been a remarkable year. The Qaddafi regime is over. Gbagbo,
Ben Ali, Mubarak are no longer
in power
. Osama
bin Laden is gone, and the idea that change could only come through
violence has been buried with him. 26
Something
is happening in
our world. The way things have been is not the way that they will be.
The humiliating grip of
corruption and tyranny is being pried open
. Dictators are on
notice. Technology is putting power into the hands of the people. The
youth are delivering a powerful rebuke
to dictatorship
, and rejecting the lie that some races,
some peoples, some religions, some ethnicities do not desire democracy27
.
The promise written down on paper — “all human beings are born free
and equal in dignity and rights” — is closer at hand.



But let us remember: Peace is hard. Peace is hard. Progress can be reversed.
Prosperity comes slowly. Societies can split apart. The measure of our
success must be whether people
can live in sustained freedom, dignity, and security28
.
And the United Nations and its member states must do their part to
support those basic aspirations. And we have more work to do.



In
Iran, we’ve seen a government that refuses to recognize the rights of
its own people29. As we meet
here today, men and women and children are
being tortured, detained and murdered by the Syrian regime. Thousands
have been killed, many during the holy time of Ramadan. Thousands more
have poured across Syria’s borders. The Syrian people have shown
dignity and courage in their pursuit of justice — protesting
peacefully, standing silently in the streets, dying for the same values
that this institution is supposed to stand for. And the question for us
is clear: Will we stand with
the Syrian people, or with their oppressors?




Already,
the United States has imposed strong sanctions on Syria’s leaders. We
supported a transfer of power that is responsive to the Syrian people.
And many of our allies have joined in this effort. But for the sake of
Syria — and the peace and security of the world — we must speak with
one voice. There’s no excuse
for inaction
. Now is the time for the United Nations Security
Council to sanction the Syrian regime, and to stand with the Syrian people.



Throughout
the region, we will have to respond to the calls for change. In Yemen,
men, women and children gather by the thousands in towns and city
squares every day with the hope that their determination and spilled
blood will prevail over a
corrupt system.
America supports those aspirations. We must
work with Yemen’s neighbors and our partners around the world to seek a
path that allows for a peaceful
transition of power30 from President
Saleh
, and a movement to free
and fair elections as soon as possible.

In
Bahrain, steps have been taken toward reform and accountability. We’re
pleased with that, but more is required. America is a close friend of
Bahrain, and we will continue to call on the government and the main
opposition bloc — the Wifaq — to pursue a meaningful dialogue that
brings peaceful change that is
responsive to the people
.
We believe the patriotism that binds Bahrainis together must be more
powerful than the sectarian forces that would tear them apart. It will
be hard, but it is possible.



We believe that each nation must chart its own course to fulfill the aspirations of its people,
and America does not expect to agree with every party or person who
expresses themselves politically. But we will always stand up for the
universal rights that were embraced by this Assembly. Those rights
depend on elections that are
free and fair31
; on governance
that is transparent and accountable
; respect for the rights of women and minorities32;
justice that is equal and fair33.
That is what our people deserve. Those are the elements of peace34 that can
last.



Moreover, the United States will continue to support those nations that
transition to democracy
with greater trade and
investment
— so that freedom
is followed by opportunity
.
We will pursue a deeper engagement with governments, but also with
civil society — students and entrepreneurs, political parties and the
press. We have banned those who abuse human rights from traveling to
our country. And we’ve sanctioned those who trample on human rights
abroad. And we will always serve as a voice for those who’ve been
silenced.

Now,
I know, particularly this week, that for many in this hall, there’s one
issue that stands as a test for these principles and a test for
American foreign policy, and that is the conflict between the Israelis and
the Palestinians
35.

One
year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine36.
I
believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people37
deserve a state
of their own
. But what I also said is that a genuine peace
can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians
themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and
others, the parties have not
bridged their differences
38.
Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations
in May of this year. That basis is clear. It’s well known to all of us
here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for
their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis
of their state.



Now, I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. I assure
you, so am I. But the question isn’t the goal39 that we
seek — the question is how do we reach that goal40.
And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict
that has endured
for decades
. Peace
is hard work
.
Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United
Nations — if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by
now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by
side
. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians — not
us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide
them: on borders
and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem41
.



Ultimately, peace
depends upon compromise
42 among people who must live
together
long after our speeches are over, long after our votes
have been tallied. That’s the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient
antagonists bridged their differences
.
That’s the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an
independent state. And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian
state — negotiations between the parties.



We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their
own, with no limit to what they can achieve
43.
There’s no question
that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed
for too long
. It is precisely because we believe so strongly in
the aspirations44 of the
Palestinian people

that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the
building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver
a Palestinian state.



But understand this as well: America’s commitment to Israel’s
security
is unshakeable. Our friendship with
Israel
is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace
must acknowledge the very real security concerns
that Israel faces every single day.

Let us be honest with
ourselves
: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars
against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at
their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come
of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate
them45
.
Israel, a small country of less than eight million people,
look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it
off of the map
. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries
of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were
killed simply because of who they are
. Those are facts. They
cannot be denied.

The
Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland.
Israel deserves recognition.
It deserves normal relations
with its neighbors. And friends
of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth
,
just as friends of Israel must recognize
the need to pursue a two-state solution46
with a secure Israel next to an independent
Palestine
.



That is the truth — each side
has legitimate aspirations
— and that’s part of what makes
peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the
other’s shoes
;
each side can see the world through the other’s eyes. That’s what we
should be encouraging. That’s what we should be promoting.

This
body — founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide, dedicated, as it is, to the dignity
of every single person
— must recognize the reality that is lived
by both the Palestinians and the Israelis
. The measure of our
actions must always be whether they advance the right of Israeli and
Palestinian children to live lives of peace47 and security
and dignity
and opportunity.
And we will only succeed in that effort if we
can encourage the parties to
sit down, to listen to each other, and to understand each other’s hopes
and each other’s fears.
That is the project to which America is
committed. There are no shortcuts. And that is what the United Nations should be
focused on
in the weeks and months to come.

Now,
even as we confront these challenges of conflict and revolution, we
must also recognize — we must also remind ourselves — that peace is not just the
absence of war
.48 True peace depends on
creating the opportunity that makes life worth living.
And to do
that, we must confront
the common enemies of humanity: nuclear weapons and poverty, ignorance
and disease
. These
forces corrode the possibility of lasting peace and together we’re
called upon to confront them.

To
lift the specter of mass destruction, we must come together to pursue the peace and security of a
world without nuclear weapons
.
Over the last two years, we’ve begun to walk down that path. Since our
Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, nearly 50 nations have taken
steps to secure nuclear materials from terrorists and smugglers. Next
March, a summit in Seoul will advance our efforts to lock down all of
them. The New START Treaty between the United States and Russia will
cut our deployed arsenals to the lowest level in half a century, and
our nations are pursuing talks on how to achieve even deeper
reductions. America will continue to work for a ban on the testing of
nuclear weapons and the production of fissile material needed to make
them.49

And
so we have begun to move in the right direction. And the United States
is committed to meeting our obligations. But even as we meet our
obligations, we’ve strengthened the treaties and institutions that help
stop the spread of these weapons
. And to do so, we must continue
to hold accountable those
nations that flout them
.

The
Iranian government cannot demonstrate that its program is peaceful. It
has not met its obligations and it rejects offers that would provide it
with peaceful nuclear power. North Korea has yet to take concrete steps
towards abandoning its weapons and continues belligerent action against
the South. There’s a future of
greater opportunity

for the people of these nations if their governments meet their
international obligations. But if they continue down a path that is
outside international law, they must be met with greater pressure and
isolation. That is what our commitment to peace and security demands.

To bring prosperity to our people,
we must promote the growth that creates opportunity
.
In this effort, let us not forget that we’ve made enormous progress
over the last several decades. Closed societies gave way to open
markets. Innovation and entrepreneurship has transformed the way we
live and the things that we do. Emerging economies from Asia to the
Americas have lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty. It’s
an extraordinary achievement. And yet, three years ago, we were
confronted with the worst financial crisis in eight decades. And that
crisis proved a fact that has become clearer with each passing year — our fates are interconnected.
In a global economy, nations will rise, or fall, together.

And
today, we confront the challenges that have followed on the heels of
that crisis. Around the world recovery is still fragile. Markets remain
volatile. Too many people are out of work. Too many others are
struggling just to get by. We acted together to avert a depression in
2009. We must take urgent and coordinated action once more. Here in the
United States, I’ve announced a plan to put Americans
back to work and jumpstart our economy
, at the same time as I’m
committed to substantially reducing our deficits over time.

We
stand with our European allies as they reshape their institutions and
address their own fiscal challenges. For other countries, leaders face
a different challenge as they shift their economy
towards more self-reliance
, boosting domestic demand
while slowing inflation
. So we will work with emerging economies
that have rebounded strongly, so that rising standards of
living create new markets that promote global growth
. That’s
what our
commitment to prosperity
demands.

To
combat the poverty
that punishes our children
, we must act on the belief that freedom from want is a
basic human right
.50 The United States has
made it a focus of our engagement abroad to help people to feed
themselves
.
And today, as drought and conflict have brought famine to the Horn of
Africa, our conscience calls on us to act. Together, we must continue
to provide assistance, and support organizations that can reach those
in need. And together, we must insist on unrestricted humanitarian
access so that we can save the lives of thousands of men and women and
children. Our
common humanity is at stake. Let us show that the life of a child in
Somalia is as precious as any other.
That is what our commitment to our
fellow human beings demand.

To
stop disease that spreads across borders, we must strengthen our system
of public health. We will continue the fight against HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis and malaria. We will focus on the health of
mothers and of children
.
And we must come together to prevent, and detect, and fight every kind
of biological danger — whether it’s a pandemic like H1N1, or a
terrorist threat, or a treatable disease.

This
week, America signed an agreement with the World Health Organization to
affirm our commitment to meet this challenge. And today, I urge all
nations to join us in meeting the HWO’s [sic] goal of making sure all
nations have core capacities
to address public health emergencies in place by 2012
. That is
what our commitment to the health of our people demands.

To
preserve our planet, we must not put off action that climate
change demands
51.
We have to tap the power of science to save those resources that are
scarce. And together, we must continue our work to build on the
progress made in Copenhagen and Cancun, so that all the major economies here
today follow through on the commitments that were made
.
Together, we must work to transform the energy
that powers our economies
, and support others as they move down
that path. That is what our commitment to the next generation demands.

And
to make sure our societies reach their potential, we must allow our
citizens to reach theirs. No country can afford
the corruption that plagues the world like a cancer.

Together, we must harness the power of open societies and open
economies. That’s why we’ve partnered with countries from across the
globe to launch a new partnership on open government that helps ensure
accountability and helps to empower citizens. No country should deny
people their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion
,52
but also no
country should deny people their rights because of who they love53
,
which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and
lesbians everywhere
.

And
no country can
realize its potential if half its population cannot reach theirs
54.
This week, the United States signed a new Declaration on Women’s
Participation. Next year, we should each announce the steps we are
taking to break down the economic and political barriers that
stand in the way of women and girls
. This is what our commitment to human
progress
demands.



I
know there’s no straight line to that progress, no single path to
success. We come from different cultures, and carry with us different
histories. But let us never forget that even as we gather here as heads
of different governments, we
represent citizens who share the same basic aspirations — to live with
dignity and freedom;
to get
an education and pursue opportunity
; to love our families, and love and
worship our God
; to live
in the kind of peace that makes life worth living
.

It
is the nature of our imperfect world that we are forced to learn these lessons over and over
again.
Conflict and
repression will endure so long as some people refuse to do unto others
as we would have them do unto us.
Yet
that is precisely why we have built institutions like this — to bind
our fates together, to help us recognize ourselves in each other —
because those who came before us believed that peace is preferable to war,
and freedom is preferable to
suppression
, and prosperity
is preferable to poverty
. That’s the message that comes not from
capitals, but from citizens
, from our people.

And
when the cornerstone of this very building was put in place, President
Truman came here to New York and said, “The United Nations is
essentially an expression of the moral nature of man’s aspirations.”
The moral nature of man’s aspirations. As we live in a world that is changing at a
breathtaking pace
, that’s a lesson that we must never forget.

Peace is hard, but we know that it
is possible
. So, together, let us be resolved to see that it is defined by our hopes and not by our
fears
. Together, let us make peace, but a peace, most
importantly, that will last.

 

Thank
you very much. (Applause.)

 

 


 

  1. A statesman worthy of the honor of addressing
    the General Assembly would direct his words to them, not to the
    Communists and greedy grabbers who make up his electoral support base.
    If truly worthy of that honor, he would restrict his remarks to the
    subject at hand instead of wandering through the pages of the catalog
    of Communist talking points.
  2. War is not a function of poverty,
    deprivation, ignorance, disease or starvation. All too frequently,
    those evils are consequences of war. War is a function of the
    intersection of greed, lust for power and opportunity.  War is a
    function of predators.  Predators seek opportunity in the form of
    weakness.  When a predator senses weakness or lack of will
    to resist in potential prey, it attacks.   If you don’t want
    to be preyed upon, eliminate the predators.  If you can’t
    eliminate them, demonstrate possession of the will and ability to
    effectively defend yourself when attacked.  Peace is an abstract
    concept, not something to be pursued. If you seek peace, pursue
    predators; hunt them to extinction and convince potential predators
    that you are able and willing to end their existence if they attack. .
  3. “Thou shalt not covet they
    Neighbor’s…” If that commandment was obeyed, conflicts would not lead
    to war. If two men want the same land or the same woman, there is
    conflict and a potential for violence. If there is a strong police
    presence, clearly perceived by both parties, there will be no violence
    if both parties are sane and sober. Internationally, the UN ideal
    was to serve as the policeman.
  4. Poverty, ignorance and disease
    are not the causes of the ongoing war between Islam and Israel.
    Islam’s war against Jews, which began in the 7th century
    with Moe’s raids on the Jewish settlements around Medina, resulted from
    hatred and envy. Moe wove bits of Jewish scripture into his new cult in
    hopes of winning the Jews over to it. Instead, most saw through his
    deception and rejected Islam.  Moe wanted their land and wealth,
    so he fabricated pretexts, demonised the Jews,  roused the Islamic
    rabble to fight and launched his attacks.For proof of Moe’s mercenary
    motivation, refer to my blog post: Islam’s Mercenary Mission.

    Moe  went out to the Jews, told them that
    he owned the earth and desired to expel them, demanding that they
    embrace Islam in return for safety. This is related in Sahih Bukhari 4.53.392.  Asked about his
    priorities for conquest, Moe expressed a preference for the Roman
    Province of Syria, based on Allah’s having “on my account taken special
    charge of Syria and its people”. That is recorded in Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2477.

    Caliph Umar “sent the Muslims to the great
    countries to fight the pagans.”, as recorded in Sahih
    Bukhari 4.53.386
    . Umar completed the conquest of Syria in 638. That
    is the root of the current war.  Islam regards all land conquered
    by Muslims to be Waqf, in irrevocable sacred trust; it must not be
    relinquished. For the details, refer to the Charter of HAMAS, Part III, Article 11.
    Allah promised victory, see 8:65
    & 13:41.

    When Kuffar reconquer land conquered by Islam,
    an intolerable condition is created: Allah is exposed as an impotent
    idol because he had promised victory.  Muslims could not tolerate
    the demonstration of impotence consequent on the Crusades and
    reconquered the Levant.  Then they fought on the wrong side of WW1
    and lost again.  Britain, with the Balfour Declaration and the
    League of Nations, restored part of Israel’s patrimony which had been
    stolen by Muslims in 638. Muslims can’t let that stand, so they went to
    war in 1948.  If they wanted a state of their own, along side
    Israel, they would have accepted the partition plan.  But they are
    not interested in a state, they are interested in a restored caliphate
    on all waqf land, and expanding on a global scale so they made war
    instead of peace.

    Allah’s jihad imperative against Jews is clear
    and unambiguous,  translated with great clarity by J.M.
    Rodwell.  Moe confirmed it, Tafsir Ibn Kathir explains it and
    Reliance of the Traveller codifies it into Islamic law.  Exactly
    what part of this does President Barack Hussein Obama, as a Muslim, not
    comprehend?

    9:29
    .
    Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been
    given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not
    that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the
    profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they
    be humbled.  [The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They
    give the Jizyah
    ] [“I have been
    ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be
    worshipped but Allah.’
    ] [The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and
    Zoroastrians
    ]

    Allah said that “He would certainly keep on
    sending against them (i.e. the Jews), till the Day of Resurrection,
    those who would afflict them with a humiliating torment. “. That
    promise is contained in 7:167.
    Tafsir Ibn Kathir tells us that Jesus will return
    to lead the Muslims in the final genocide against the Jews.  A
    hadith, recorded by Bukhari & Muslim, informs us that the gates of Paradise will
    not swing open for Muslims until they hunt down and kill the last
    Jew.

    [In the future, the Jews will
    support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa,
    son of Mary, will kill the Jews. This will occur just before the end of
    this world.]  [“The Hour will not be established until you fight
    with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will
    say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”]

    Poverty, ignorance & disease are not the causes of this war; it is
    caused by the damnable doctrines of Islam and no other cause.
    Peace will only be obtained by removing Islam from the region and the
    world. If Muslims do not quit believing
    or quit living, they will not quit waging war against Jews.

  5. In Islam, peace is the
    condition appertaining when Dar Ul-Harb is completely conquered and
    engulfed by Dar Ul-Islam; it is the fruit of conquest.  Islam does
    not make peace.

    47:35.
    So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islâm), while
    you are having the upper hand. Allâh is with you, and will never
    decrease the reward of your good deeds.

    That ayeh is quoted by Reliance of the Traveller O9.16, which informs us
    that truces can only last ten years
    and are important matters best reserved for the caliph because ” it is
    a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the
    nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality, and
    our interests must be looked after therein, which is why it is best
    left to the caliph under any circumstances,”.

  6. Peace
    has nothing to do with dignity, prosperity, social justice or any other
    item in the Communist litany. Peace is the absence of war and threat of
    war. If either war or the threat thereof are present, peace is
    not.  The condition precedent for peace is the total defeat of the
    aggressor. In the case of Islam, that requires the destruction of Islamic faith. While
    Muslims continue to believe,
    Islam is not defeated and there will be no peace.
  7. Peace is not hard, it is impossible.
    While human nature remains what it is, there will always be greedy or
    narcissistic megalomaniacs who assert a divine commission to conquer
    and rule the world.  The proximate solution to this insoluble
    problem is to bring about the death of those megalomaniacs and the
    defeat of their armies so that they permanently lose the will to wage
    war.  Maintaining the fragile peace is only possible by
    manifesting such military strength and resolute will that
    warmongers are deterred from mounting attacks for fear of
    destruction.
  8. You have the power, but not
    the will to deliver peace. Harry Truman showed the way in August of
    1945.
  9. That
    maundering anal orifice is deliberately conflating cause and effect.
    Wars cause poverty, poverty does not cause wars. Islamic aggression has
    a  is driven by Islamic doctrine which has a mercenary motivation. Muslims are threatened with eternity in the fire if they sit
    at home and promised eternity in gardens flowing with rivers of wine if they wage jihad. While Muslims
    believe those threats and promises, peace is impossible.
  10. Islam has a standard, set by
    Moe’s recitation & sunnah. When one reads the Qur’an & hadith, one discovers the fatal fact that
    normative Islam is genocidally
    violent by design.  Usama bin Ladin was a
    believer, not an extremist. He acted in obedience to Allah; in
    emulation of Moe.
  11. Allah expressly forbids
    partnership with Kuffar in several ayat including: 3:28,
    3:118,
    4:144,
    5:51,
    5:57,
  12. Capable of what? Are they
    capable of preventing the creation and maintenance of terrorist
    training camps?  Are they willing to prevent the creation and
    maintenance of terrorist training camps?  Can they protect secular
    Muslims from the Taliban?  Are they willing to protect the secular
    Muslims?  I see no evidence of either capacity or will.
  13. We can not restore what you have
    destroyed unless we first get rid of you and your willing associates in
    Congress. That process will not be rebuilding, it will be tearing down
    the counterproductive policies and regulations you have
    enacted.
  14. What strength? Our inventories
    of cruise missiles and smart bombs have been depleted. Our forces are
    over extended. Our troops are exhausted from excessively long combat
    rotations and many are losing life and limb as a result of your
    suicidal rules of engagement.  In the best case, strength is
    weakness if not accompanied by resolve; the will to completely destroy
    the enemy.  While Islam exists, we have no victory, we have a
    defeat.
  15. Al-Qaeda is not the
    enemy, it is one of many brigades. Islam is the enemy, no matter what
    name it operates under. HAMAS, Hezbollah, PLO and Al-Qaeda are one;
    they are Islam.
  16. One down, one billion to go.
    Killing one General does not end the war. Leaders can be replaced, like
    shark’s teath, when one falls, another steps forward to take his place.
    Winning the war and establishing peace requires killing the
    shark.
  17. Peace is a compound condition,
    not a direction. Peace is the absence of war & threat of war. Peace
    can not be obtained while Islam exists. Progress toward peace is only
    made by inducing the apostasy or death of Muslims.
  18. The UN may
    declare that everyone is born free & dignified, but Islam denies
    it. Moe’s denial is clear on the face of Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, which confirms the jihad
    imperatives. When disbelievers recite Shehade and follow Islam’s rules
    & rituals, then “their
    blood and property will be sacred to us
    “.  Our blood and
    property are not sacred to Muslims until we become Muslims.  “”Whoever says, ‘None has the
    right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers,
    prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and
    has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.
    “”.
    We have no rights or dignity until we become Muslims!  Exactly
    what part of that does Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, not
    comprehend?
  19. How
    about the right of citizens of Israel to live in peace on their own
    land, free from assault, attack and abduction, without a constant rain
    of rockets & mortar shells?  It is not possible for Jews to
    enjoy those rights in Israel while there are Muslims within rocket
    range.  Israel will have no peace until their enemy is eliminated
    from the region.  Falestinians do not have any rights that Jews do
    not have. No matter what ‘rights’, privileges or prosperity you provide
    to them, they need to exterminate the Jews.  That fatal fact will
    not change until they quit believing in Allah or quit living. Nothing
    can alter this objective factual reality. Malignant maundery does not
    cut the mustard.
  20. You can
    not maintain what does not exist.  Peace and security can not be
    maintained because they do not exist. Peace and security do not exist
    because Islam exists.
  21. They can only claim
    their rights and dignity by breaking Allah’s yoke of slavery and
    rejoining the human race. While they are Muslims, they are Allah’s
    slaves, with no rights or dignity, they fight in Allah’s cause, killing
    others and being killed. The “Arab spring” is not about rights and
    dignity, it is about exchanging one tyrant for another.
    Exchanging one tyrant for another is change without improvement.
  22. Three
    years ago, we stupidly elected you. We are worse off for it.  I
    wrote in Alan Keyes.
  23. Democracy is mob
    rule.  How is mob rule superior to any tyrant?  Tyranny of
    the majority is still tyranny. Tunisia is still misruled by Muslims and
    will remain so for the foreseeable future.  Improvement can only
    come with secular, limited government.
  24. A few demanded
    universal rights, those with guns demanded Shari’ah. Guess who
    prevailed.  Exchanging one tyrant for another is not an
    improvement. The Arab spring is a flood of blood.
  25. They have no
    freedom, they are Allah’s slaves. They have toppled one tyrant to
    enthrone another, gaining nothing. The only improvement is a small
    reduction in the number of Muslims in the world.
  26. “Change”
    is an Obama campaign slogan. Change is not synonymous with
    improvement.  The change they want is global conquest. Who gives a
    damn how they accomplish that objective?  Ballot or bullet, its a
    bad outcome!  Electing Obama changed things for the worse. Islamic
    attacks and conquest change things for the worse. We need to roll back
    both of them.
  27. 33:36.
    It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have
    decreed a matter
    that they should have any option in their
    decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed
    strayed in a plain error.    Moe ruled by decree, and he
    is the exemplar for Muslims to emulate. 33:21.
    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  Islamic law is what Moe said and did; so
    much for democracy in Islam.
  28. People
    can not live in freedom when they are Allah’s slaves.  They need
    to throw off Allah’s yoke and rejoin the human race.  Until they
    do, everyone else is in danger from them, with neither peace nor
    security.
  29. What did you do
    about it when the green revolt began?  You allowed it to be
    suppressed.  What will you do when their next protest is
    launched?  You will sit idly by and watch the suppression, just as
    you did last time.
  30. Peaceful transition to
    what?  From one tyrant to another. Replacing one loaded diaper
    with another is change without improvement.
  31. Free & fair,
    such as where ballot boxes were stuffed in Alaska and New Black
    Panthers swung batons at the entrance to a polling place?  Or “one
    man, one vote, one time”?
  32. Such as the rights
    of women in Saudi Arabia? And the rights of Christians in Egypt,
    Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia?
  33. Free & fair, such as requiring two female
    witnesses to match that of one male? Such as barring Christians from
    giving testimony?
  34. Elections, justice and rights are
    not elements of peace. War is a function of greed, avarice, the lust
    for power & Islamic doctrine. Peace is a function of the absence of
    those evils.  At he height of its Empire building, Rome had an
    elected senate, did that stop their conquest?  Hitler was elected,
    too.
  35. It
    is the genocidal intention of Islam toward Jews.  The gates of
    Paradise won’t swing open until they kill the last Jew. Get a clue from
    Sahih Bukhari 4.52.177.
  36. How much money have we given
    them?  How much did they get from the UN & EU?  How much
    did Arafat & his cronies bank?  You want them to be
    independent? Then quit enabling their dependency. Cut off the flow of
    tribute.
  37. Two World Net Daily articles
    contain vital information which is necessary to understand this crucial
    issue.

    * We have all been had!

    * Palestinian people do not exist

    Here is a vital excerpt from the second article.

    Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper
    Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization
    executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here’s what he said:

    The Palestinian people
    does not exist.
    The creation of a Palestinian state is only a
    means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our
    Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference
    between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese
    . Only for
    political and
    tactical reasons
    do we speak today about the existence of a
    Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand
    that we
    posit the existence
    of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.

    For tactical reasons,
    Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise
    claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly
    demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we
    reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute
    to unite Palestine and Jordan.

  38. Islam demands
    genocide & politicide; Israel demands the right to live in peace in
    their own homeland. How do you hope to bridge that difference?
    Islam demands total surrender from the start. No negotiation is
    possible. Israel can not obtain peace without pushing the Muslims back
    beyond rocket range.  The land belongs to Israel, was stolen in
    638 & 1948. Israel won it back when the Muslims attacked again in
    1967. There is no excuse for demanding that Israel yield that land.
  39. The goal is just peace: Israel alone,
    secure in her own homeland without attack and the threat thereof.
  40. The goal can be reached
    by removing Muslims from the region, inducing mass apostasy or ushering
    them into Hell. There are no alternatives.
  41. Would you give half of Washington D.C. to
    the Confederacy? Who would get the Capitol?  Who would get the
    White House?  Exactly why in Hell should Israel give their enemies
    one blessed centimeter of their homeland?  In 1948 King Hussein
    seized half of Jerusalem, promising to all ow access. What really
    happened?  How did Jewish tomb stones wind up in latrines?
    Why were Jews completely excluded from the Temple Mount?  Exactly
    why should Jerusalem revert to those conditions?  Exactly why
    should Muslims be firing rockets and artillery from the Golan Heights
    and the peaks of the Jordan Rift Valley?  The Muslims left the
    land they were squatting on with assurances that Jews would be driven
    into the sea so that the Muslims could hold the entire area. Their
    genocide failed.  Why in Hell should Israel let them return with
    their brood, to try again?
  42. “Long live Israel.”
    || “From the river to the sea.”  How do you compromise with
    genocide.  God  bless you, I want to know: exactly how in
    Hell do you compromise with genocide. Answer this question in a
    comment, please.  “Ok, just kill 4 million of us.” Great idea,
    right?
  43. They want to
    achieve three things, reconquer Israel, merge the region into a
    caliphate and conquer the rest of the world. No limits! What a great
    idea.
  44. Damned fools
    and traitors assert that Falestinians have ‘legitimate aspirations’,
    operating on the assumption that the hierarchy of needs we all learned
    about in Psychology 101 applies to Muslims.  Unfortunately, it
    does not. Lets get real.  Islam is not about live long and
    prosper, it is about die fighting and get into the celestial
    bordello.  Islam values Allah’s celestial bordello over this
    worldly life.

    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 .

    9:38.
    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.

    47:36.
    The life of
    this world is but play and pastime,
    but if you believe (in the
    Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism), and fear Allâh, and avoid evil,
    He will grant you your wages, and will not ask you your wealth.

    8:28.
    And know that your
    possessions and your children are but a trial
    and that surely
    with Allâh is a mighty reward.

    34:37.
    And it is not your
    wealth, nor your children that bring you nearer to Us
    (i.e.
    pleases Allâh), but only he (will please Us) who believes (in the
    Islâmic Monotheism), and does righteous
    deeds; as for such, there will be twofold reward for what they did, and
    they will reside in the high dwellings
    (Paradise) in peace and
    security.

    63:9. O you who believe! Let not your properties
    or your children divert you from the remembrance of Allâh. And
    whosoever does that, then they are the losers.

  45. The Oslo Accords
    contain a provision requiring the cessation of inculcating hatred &
    inciting violence.  Arafat never implemented that provision. No
    Muslim ever will.  Like Lucy snatching the ball away from Charlie
    Brown, the Muslims will never negotiate in good faith.
  46. Two states: Israel & Trans
    Jordan. What happened in 1948?  What happened in 1967?  Can
    you get a clue?
  47. Ever heard of the
    Maillot Massacre?  How about the murder of the Fogel family?
    Then there was an anti-tank rocket fired at a school bus, killing one
    boy and injuring the driver.  Israeli children will only live
    peacefully and securely when the world is an Islam free zone.
  48. That kind of
    blather induces incontinence. Barack Hussein Obama is merging his
    Socialist agenda into the peace issue. When there is war or the threat
    of war there is no peace.  When there are Muslims, there is no
    peace.  Peace and Islam are polar opposites.  Peace is not a
    function of prosperity, wealth, social justice, etc.  Peace is a
    function of the extinction of predators, extraneous issues should not
    be conflated with peace.
  49. Pandora’s box is
    open, the lid is lost and the demons are loose.
    Proliferation happened and it can not be reversed. Anyone who trusts
    Communists or Muslims who have nukes is a suicidal idiot.
  50. Once
    again, the specter of International Socialism, aka. Communism raises
    its ugly head and bares its fangs.  Obama is not satisfied with
    wrecking the American economy, he wants to wreck the whole world and
    make us pay for it.
  51. Anthropomorphic climate change is a
    proven fraud. That spew of malarkey from President Obama is a great
    embarrassment to the nation who stupidly elected him three years
    ago.  There is nothing more deleterious to our economy than his
    cap and tax plan. The need for economic growth militates against that
    malicious policy.
  52. Freedom
    of speech, such as Pakistan’s blasphemy law, which they are trying to
    impose through the UN? . Freedom of religion such as Egyptian Copts are
    experiences with assaults, murders and arson with impunity?
  53. Shari’ah prescribes the death penalty
    for homosexuality. Iran hangs Queers.
  54. In Islam. women are chattel;
    men own them.  Exactly how do you hope to change that?

September 22, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , | Leave a comment

Combating Religious Hatred and Vilification


I had seen reports that the draft resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions had been edited to substitute vilification for defamation but I had not seen substantive details prior to last night.  One of my Google Alerts linked to an article which included a link to the amended resolution.

What is the big deal?  The State Department asserts that the USA rejects resolution on the basis of the concept of defamation of religions.  I presume that the edit is an attempt to throw a lifeline to Obamination.  Recall that while Obamination rejects defamation, he accepts negative stereotyping, which was substituted for defamation in the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution.  The OIC is tinkering with the semantics in hopes of sinning over some of the nay sayers and obstainers to their side.

None of the resolutions define the crucial terms, so I checked the on line dictionaries. A Google search turned up fifteen definitions of defamation.

  • Seven definitions specify that the victim  is a person.
  • Four definition specify that the statement must be false.
  • Six definitions list slander as an element.
  • Five definitions list libel as an element.
  • Two definitions list calumny as an element.
  • One of the definitions lists vilification as an element.
  • Three of the definitions list malicious as an element.

Next, I looked up vilification, receiving four results.

  • Two definitions listed defamation as an element.
  • One definition listed calumny as an element.
  • One definition listed slander and libel as elements.

Next, I looked up negative stereotyping , striking out. Removing the adjective resulted in fifteen definitions.  These are the best of the lot.

  • A stereotype is a commonly held public belief about specific social groups, or types of individuals. The concepts of “stereotype” and “prejudice” are often confused with many other different meanings. …
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotyping
  • stereotype – pigeonhole: treat or classify according to a mental stereotype; “I was stereotyped as a lazy Southern European”
  • stereotype – a conventional or formulaic conception or image; “regional stereotypes have been part of America since its founding”
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

To determine the meaning of those terms, as used in the resolutions, we must examine their context.

  • Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

Who is defamed?  Is Islam a human person?  How does illustrating the cause–effect relationship of Islam to terrorism affront human dignity?  If Muslims find their dignity affronted by exposure of the truth about Islam, they can restore their dignity by converting to a pacifist religion.

How does defamation lead to illicit restriction of freedom of religion?  The reference is obviously to the Swiss minaret ban and the French Burqa ban.  What do minarets have to do with freedom of religion?  In ancient times, they were watch towers. Muslims adopted them for the call to prayer. They also serve as a powerful symbol of Islamic supremacy.  But they are not mentioned in the Qur’an or hadith as religious requirements.

Visit Open Burhan to verify the literal translation and compare the other translations of 33:59. You can check the entry in an Arab/English dictionary to verify it.

  • You, you the prophet, say to your wives and your daughters and the believers’ women they (F) near (lengthen) on them from their shirts/gowns/wide dresses, that (is) nearer that (E) they (F) be known (better than being identified), so they (F) do not be harmed mildly/harmed, and God was/is forgiving, merciful.

If you want to know the real deal, read Sahih Bukhari 1.4.148. Its about Umar hassling Sauda, one of Moe’s wives when she went out to answer a call of nature.

  • 14. Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the legislation necessary to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, [Emphasis added.]

That paragraph contains two key phrases which, when compared to certain relevant public statements, give us the final clue.

The Secretary-General is concerned over the controversy that has been created by the publication of the Danish cartoons.  He believes that the freedom of the press should always be exercised in a way that fully respects the religious beliefs and tenets of all religions.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10334.doc.htm

In plain language, Kofi Annan would have prevented the publication of the cartoons if it was in his power. That is the power they are seeking.

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.”

The Secretarys General told us that the Danish Cartoons did not respect Islamic religious beliefs and that Geert Wilders’ documentary constituted hate speech and incitement to violence.

The cartoon of greatest concern depicts Moe with a bomb in his turban, implying that he was a terrorist.  Moe never had a bomb because he died prior to the invention of gunpowder. But he was a terrorist, by his own admission:

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

The hate speech and incitement in Fitna come from the Qur’an and clerics, not from Geert Wilders.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=216_1207467783

Lets get down to the real issue of defamation, negative stereotyping. ¶ 24 contains a 28 item enumerated list. The seventh item is of interest.

  • 7. Expresses deep concern, in this respect, that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

Fitna and the Motoons display that association; what is wrong with it?  Re-examine the quotes from Bukhari’s collection of authentic sayings. Moe said that he won by terrifying his victims.  The Qur’an is not silent about this issue.

  • 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).

We shall terrorize the disbelievers. Click the link and read the context, it is one of aggressive conquest.

  • 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.”

What did Allah say he would do?  What did he order the angels to do? After reading this appetizer from Tafsir Ibn Kathir, click the link and read the entire passage.

  • Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said, “In the aftermath of Badr, the people used to recognize whomever the angels killed from those whom they killed, by the wounds over their necks, fingers and toes, because those parts had a mark as if they were branded by fire.”
  • 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.

Compare the last clause in 8:57 to the last clause in 59:2.  The objective is to build a reputation for brutality; you will see the application in 59:13.

  • [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.

Build the biggest army you can to strike terror.  What is the “cause of God”? [hint]  Now we get down to the practical application of those verses.

  • 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh 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.

    33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

What did Allah say he would do?  What did he do?  What resulted?  Moe and his army killed the men of one tribe and enslaved their widows and orphans. But, of course, Islam has no connection to terror and human rights violations. Its the religion of peace.

  • 59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) 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 Allâh! But Allâh’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).

What did Allah do to the Bani An-Nadir?  What is the meaning of the admonition?  Can you relate that to the lesson of 8:57?

  • 59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh – Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh).

The Jews fear Muslims more than they fear Allah. Why is that?  Can you make the connections with 8:57 & 59:2?  How did Allah cast terror into their hearts?

Those Muslims are supremely arrogant; they assume that we are ignorant, gullible fools who will believe anything if it is repeated with sufficient frequency. “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism”.  Islam’s scripture and tradition inform us that the statement from ¶ 24.7 is an accursed lie. They want to base international law on that lie, criminalizing  revelation of the fact that it is a lie!

The true source of Islamic blasphemy law is Reliance of the Traveller.  Observe the penalty for apostasy.

  • o8.1

    When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

    o8.2

    In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) 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.

Apostates are killed. What acts warrant their death?  Reliance lists twenty, these are particularly relevant.

  • o8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

    (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

  • -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;

    -17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

    -18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

    -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). )

How do those rules apply to us as disbelievers?  When disbelievers are conquered and subjugated as dhimmis under Islamic supremacy, they are obligated by a treaty of protection. That treaty is violated if they perform certain acts listed in Reliance. Guess what the penalty is.

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

  • o11.11

    When a subject’s agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).

  • o9.14

    When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

When the resolution is voted out of the third committee and passed in the General Assembly, it will not have the force of law, but it will add unwarranted legitimacy to existing blasphemy laws which are used to persecute religious minorities in several Islamic nations.

Unfortunately, that is not the real threat to our liberty. This is:  Ad Hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards.  The cmte. will meet at the end of November for a week and a few days. Its purpose is to insert the resolution into ICERD through a binding protocol, giving it the force of  international law.  Last year, the cmte. bogged down in procedural matters. We have no way of knowing when it will finish its work, but when it does, we will be outvoted and the protocol will become law.

Several blog posts about the ad hoc cmte. have been compiled.

The resolution will be voted on in the cmte., the vote is expected to happen Monday or Tuesday.  The General Assembly vote should happen in December. Several human rights organizations are lobbying against it, but with little hope of success.   Besides signing the petition posted by Open Doors, there is not much we can do about it.

Our best tactic is a counter attack: to raise the political cost of censoring us above Islam’s threshold of pain.  As I showed you their egregious lie and proved it above, you can share that information with others.  Copy and cross post this blog post. Paste it into emails. Tell everyone who will listen about the injustice being perpetrated by the OIC.

Three international human rights covenants contain provisions which would, if enforced, require that Islam be proscribed by law.  The purpose of the International Qur’an Petition is to bring the vital facts to the attention of the public and the World Court. Please sign it and spread it. Cross post it on your blog or web site. Send it by email to  everyone you can hope to influence.

 

November 22, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | 2 Comments

Combating Defamation of Religions


The current incarnation of the resolution demanding international imposition of Islam’s blasphemy laws is A/C.3/65/L.46. Combating defamation of religions,
dated October 28 ’10. Like its predecessors, the draft resolution begins with references to previous resolutions and related documents, then it gets down to the serious business of reaffirming, welcoming,  underlining and expressing serious concern.   Lets  examine selected  lumps from the septic tank.

Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence, Stressing also the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, Reaffirming that discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes a violation of human rights and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter,

Defamation usually applies to individuals, see the first terms in a definition search.

  • a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone’s words or actions
  • aspersion: an abusive attack on a person’s character or good name
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Perhaps we can find some relevant detail.

Expresses deep concern, in this respect, that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

 

[…] which clearly confirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group, […]

Almost everyone more than twelve years old should recall immediately what they are kvetching about: the Motoons & Fitna.  The Motoons depict Moe as a terrorist. Is that defamatory?  He died in 632, prior to the invention of gunpowder, so he never had a bomb in his turban.  But he was a self-confessed terrorist.

  • 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]

The Motoons contained exaggeration, but they also contained the element of truth necessary to effective humor. They did not calumniate or defame Moe.

Fitna juxtaposed the Qur’an with scenes  of Imams inciting the believers to jihad, followed by scenes of slaughter. Fitna connects the dots, demonstrating cause and effect.  It is true, and therefore not defamatory.

In the matter of terrorism: Moe claimed victory through terror. Allah said that he would cast terror, commanded the Muslims to strike off necks and fingers, then  reported that he cast terror and its consequences.[Emphasis added for clarity.]

  • 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).
  • 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.”
  • 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.
  • 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) Allâh 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.

    33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

  • 59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) 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 Allâh! But Allâh’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).
  • 59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh – Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh).

Terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam.  Pointing out that fact is not defamatory, it is truthful.

Noting with concern that defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights, and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the resulting discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions

They are alarmed that our government does not silence our criticism of Islam.  The First Amendment gives me a right to expose Islam’s rotten core without fear of the federal government.

Underlining the important role of education in the promotion of tolerance, which involves acceptance by the public of, and its respect for, diversity, including with regard to religious expression, and underlining also the fact that education should contribute in a meaningful way to promoting tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief,

They demand that our schools be co-opted to indoctrinate our children with false praises of Islam so that they will tolerate the intolerable.

Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still evident in the world;

That sentence is redundant, it simply restates the complaint about exposing the doctrines & practices of Islam.  It is the second item in a 28 item enumerated list. The third item follows suit, adding two new elements.

Strongly deplores all acts of psychological and physical violence and assaults, and incitement thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, and such acts directed against their businesses, properties, cultural centres and places of worship, as well as the targeting and desecration of holy books, holy sites and religious symbols and venerated personalities of all religions;

If you are so concerned about incitement to violence, why don’t you ban the Qur’an, which contains imperatives to wage war on Christians? Are you unable to make the connection between 9:39 & 9:123 with attacks on churches in Egypt, Iraq,Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan & Indonesia?

Here are the novel elements:

  • desecration of holy books
  • venerated personalities

Of course, they are not kvetching about terrorists who occupied the Church of the Nativity, who practiced istinja with pages torn from the Bible. [In the link, Daniel Pipes reveals the existence of a fatwa permitting the practice.] Neither are they kvetching about burning Bibles. The reference is specific to International Burn a Qur’an Day.

And the venerated personality is Moe, who really was a terrorist, not Jesus Christ, whose paternity, divinity, crucifixion, death & resurrection are denied by the Qur’an and who is co-opted by Islam as a genocidal warlord.   The Qur’ans torn and partially burned in New York and torn in Washington D.C. Sept. 11 were English translations, which are not considered sacred or authentic by Islam.

Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion, as well as the targeting and desecration of holy books, holy sites and religious symbols and venerated personalities of all religions;

Their definition of incitement is so loose that it encompasses every possible criticism of Islam. Recall what Secy. Gen. Ban Ki-moon 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.”

The hate speech in Fitna flows from the lips of Imams. The incitement flows from their lips and from the Qur’an.

Reaffirms that general recommendation XV (42) of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,14 in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

I have a few examples for your consideration.

  • 98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur’ân and Prophet Muhammad ()) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.
  • 2:159. Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences and the guidance, which We have sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allâh and cursed by the cursers.
  • 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.

 

Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the legislation necessary 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, 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;

That is the same tired boiler plate demand for legislation criminalizing criticism of Islam. Bear in mind what Ban said about Fitna.  Islam contumaciously demands that it be shielded from all questioning and criticism.  Islam demands that it and it alone be allowed to hurl curses while being shielded from return fire.

November 5, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | 2 Comments

%d bloggers like this: