Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Hillary’s Freudian Slip?


The first paragraph of this excerpt from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s address to the opening of the UNHRC should raise some concern. I have highlighted the last two sentences of that paragraph.  It appears that she conceives of the HRC as a country instead of a council.  Even the United Nations is not a nation, a sovereign entity. The footnote does not help.  If she did not intend to expand the HRC or its parent organization into a sovereign entity, then the footnote should have corrected the slip.

The paragraph begins with the first sign of insanity: assertion of a possibility of improving a failed institution whose majority bloc is fundamentally opposed to the council’s mission.  Any sane person would know that there is no possibility that one out of 47 members of the council could move it onto the right track.

A few paragraphs later, Hillary launches into a sore subject: the annual ritual of condemning ‘defamation of Islam’.  She pretends opposition to the ritual & resolution, but we know from the “Freedom of Belief and Expression” jointly sponsored by the State Department and Egypt, that Obomination actually favors censorship.   The transparently false distinction between ‘defamation of Islam’ and ‘negative stereotyping of Islam’ stinks like an open sewer.

Insults?  Stating the fact that Islam’s 52 year old founder married the six year old daughter of his bosom buddy, as recorded in muttawir ahadith, is not an insult, it is a statement of historical fact, as is his consummation of that marriage three years later, when Aisha was nine.

Stating the fact that Islam declared and is prosecuting perpetual warfare against the rest of the human race is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. Since the Qur’an has been translated into multiple languages and posted on the internet, it is possible for us to read it and discover the truth for ourselves.

Stating the fact that terrorism is an intrinsic, foundational sacrament of Islam is not an insult, it is a statement of fact.  The six canonical hadith collections, like the Qur’an, have been translated and uploaded so that we can  learn that Moe was made victorious by terror. The fatal facts become clear  when certain Qur’an verses are read in the light of Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 and 1.7.331.  Those are 3:151, 8:12, 8:57, 8:60, 9:12033:26, 59:2 & 59:13. Yet the resolutions complain that “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with terrorism and human rights violations.”.

So Hillary proposes replacing the resolutions with “concrete steps to fight intolerance”.  Would she tolerate vampires if they were real instead of mythological?  But she insists that we tolerate the continued existence and expansion of a piracy cult which has murdered an estimated 270,000,000 people since it began its depredations in 622.

Why  would any sane person tolerate a piracy cult that asserts a divine mandate to conquer the entire world;  declaring the lives and property of non-believers  not to be sacred?  They declare open season on us and we are supposed to tolerate it.  Someone’s  head is so far up her anus that she can  perceive neither objective factual reality nor justice.

Respect & tolerance must be reciprocal, but Islam is supremely intolerant.  The Qur’an curses us and calls us the worst of living creatures. Islam can not tolerate criticism or questioning because it is false, woven of stories plagiarized from previous faiths.

Islam’s Shari’ah law prescribes the death penalty for any negative expression about Allah, Moe and their damned cult. The same draconian rule is imposed on conquered Christians.  This annual attempt to impose their rule on us is part of their program of world conquest. We must elect a President who will jam it up their snouts!

[…] In 2009, the United States joined the Human Rights Council because President Obama and I believed we could make a difference by working with you on the inside rather than standing on the outside merely as a critic. And over the past 18 months, we have worked together. We’ve reached across regional lines in an attempt to overcome what hobbles this country[i] more than anything else, our divisions as member states. The unity of purpose we have forged with respect to Libya offers us an opportunity to continue that progress.

[…]For example, in this session we have an opportunity to move beyond a decade-long debate over whether insults to religion should be banned or criminalized. It is time to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression and pursue a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs.

[…][i] council more than…

March 2, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ad Hoc Committee Leaves Work Unfinished


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

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

Proposals by Pakistan on behalf of OIC

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

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

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

ICCPR

Article 20

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

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

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

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

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

Combating Defamation of Religions: Anticipation


Update Nov. 10, 2009: A new edition of the resolution has been tabled in the Third Committee. Two new posts will bring the reader up to date. The first of these was written before I found the draft document. It contains extensive links to earlier resolutions and related documents. The second contains considerable detail about the new resolution and links to items in the footnotes found in the draft. It also has links to petitions you can sign and promote and a Sense of Congress resolution opposing the OIC’s current tactics.

 


 

In May of ’09, the OIC issued their 2nd oic observatory report on islamophobia (june 2008 to april 2009). that fifty page pdf file may be our best guide in anticipating the content of the ’09 Defamation of Religions Resolution which is expected to be submitted on or before November 3; voting may begin Nov. 12. As of the time of this writing, no draft resolution has surfaced. In anticipation of the resolution, Open Doors has begun a Free to Believe petition campaign asking UN member states to reject the resolution.

Our first warning flag is found in the first sentence of the report’s forward.

The common values of mankind must be based on a firm commitment to human rights1, as well as on the recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings2.

  1. Download Islam vs Human Rights to see how well Islamic doctrine complies with international human rights covenants.
  2. Read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 to see Islam’s respect for human dignity; our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights until we become Muslims.

The second paragraph of the forward is rich and thick with lies.

Islam is a religion that implies “peace” by its very nomenclature3. It advocates respect for all religious beliefs and embraces the truth of the preceding Abrahamic faiths4. In reaffirming the preceding prophethoods, it does not, under any circumstances and as a matter of belief, permit any attack on the prophets or other religious symbols of Christianity or Judaism5. In this context it must be emphasized and understood that Islam is not a contender of Christianity or Judaism6.

  1. Islam is peace if and only if submission is peace. Submission is peace to the extent that, if you surrender to Islam, it won’t wage war against you.
  2. The Jews earned Allah’s anger and the Christians went astray. 9:30. And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
  3. Read The Defamation of Jesus Christ to learn how Islam denies his patrimony, crucifixion, death & resurrection and depicts him as a genocidal warlord.
  4. Allah’s Jihad imperatives, expressed in 9:29 & 9:123 prove the fact that Islam is in a permanent state of war against Jews & Christians.

The third paragraph of the forward is a gold mine of lies, with a little truth mixed in.

Islamophobia signifies the contemporary proliferation of discrimination against Muslims and distortion of Islam and is partly due to the ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam in the West7. It would be an unfortunate error in judgment in believing that Islam is linked to terror8; that it is intolerant of other religious beliefs9, that its values and practices are not democratic10; that it favors repression of freedom of expression and undermining human rights11.

  1. Phobia implies irrational fear & loathing. Is it irrational to loathe an institution which has murdered 270,000,000 people in the last 1386 years? I hate Islam, but I do not distort it; I reveal its evil nature by means of its own canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence. I am attempting to correct popular ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam.
  2. Islam is linked to terror by Allah’s declaration that he would cast terror, order to mutilate in conjunction with his casting of terror, declaration that he successfully cast terror, and Moe’s declaration that he was made victorious by terror.
  3. Allah said that if anyone sought a religion other than Islam, it would never be accepted. Allah commanded Muslims to fight pagans until only Allah is worshiped. Is that tolerance?
  4. 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. How democratic is that?
  5. The issue of Defamation of Religion & Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolutions results from the OIC’s promotion of censorship.If waging war against us does not violate human rights, what does?

In the fourth paragraph, we receive our first hints at the resolution to come.

Islamophobia is a manifestation of racial discrimination12. It constitutes a two stranded form of racism anchored in both the different physical appearance of Muslims as well as the intolerance of their religion and cultural beliefs. It has now spread to the level of mainstream political activity13 and needs to be considered and addressed as one of the most serious threats to the
world’s stability.

  1. Criticism of Islam has been equated to racism since the preliminary document for Durban II. Accusation of racism is a favorite method of stifling debate.
  2. That is an obvious reference to emerging European parties which object to Islamification.

Following a little consolidation, they’ll give us another hint. Muslims are suffering from the Danish Cartoons, Fitna and blog posts that reveal orthodox Islamic doctrines. Muslims are so delicate and temperamental that they require a legal shield to protect them from perceived insult. They are burning homes & churches and killing Christians in Africa & Asia but it is Muslims who need protection from attack. Yeah, right.

The frequency of demonic portrayal and misrepresentation of Islam and Muslims have resulted in a situation where the identity of Muslims,
their self-esteem, human dignity and human rights has suffered tremendously. In short, Muslims need to be afforded protection against the social and psychological damage inflicted by the negative stereotyping and smear campaign which has wrongfully caused discrimination, bigotry, harassment and mental and physical abuse.

It is not extremely clear, we must read between the lines to harvest the next hint from the redundant maundery.

A section of the western media is a major factor in the formation of the collective misrepresentation about Islam and Muslims14. This has been spreading in the impactful areas of information15, education and the fertile grounds for the dissemination of the open hostility and the entrenchment of hatred against it.

In the present globalized world, peaceful and harmonious coexistence among diverse religions and cultures is not an option but the only means to survival16. Spectacular achievements in sphere of information and communication technology that have transformed our world into a single community afford threats as well as opportunities for peaceful coexistence17. They present mankind with tools to incite hatred and intolerance; discrimination; and distortions of religious and cultural beliefs that can spark violence causing loss of innocent lives and damage to property18. On the other hand, they can be utilized to do the reverse if we have the collective will not to allow their use to preach hatred and intolerance of other religions and cultural beliefs19.

  1. The media will continue to be a target, as it was in the Durban II Draft, Paragraphs 17, 66 & 119 and paragraphs 3(e) & 8 of the more recent Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution passed by the UNHRC. We can expect them to demand self-censorship again. .
  2. “Information” is a code word for the internet. They want to censor blogs and web sites. The reference to education means they want to convert our schools into indoctrination centers to convert our children to Islam.
  3. Translation: “embrace Islam and you will be safe”, a common theme in Moe’s extortion letters.
  4. “Threats” means they want to shut down our blogs and web sites. “Opportunities” means they want to set up propaganda sites to recruit converts by concealing the truth about Islam while extolling its non-existent virtues.
  5. “Spark violence” is a reference to the Danish Cartoons, which did not cause violence. The violence was caused by rabble rousing sermons at Juma Prayers in Mosques.
  6. Clarity at last! The demand for censorship is out in the open.

The conclusions and Recommendations section on page 26 of the pdf reinforces the lies I exposed earlier and the call for Dialogue which they brought out in the Executive Summary, which I did not cover. The Dialogue pitch is boilerplate from past resolutions.

The OIC proposes a frank, sincere and result oriented Dialogue20 geared to curbing Islamophobia through promoting better understanding of different cultures and religions as well as better integration of Muslims in the West21. The OIC has remained firm in its commitment towards bringing about a meaningful Dialogue among civilizations and has been working closely with its international partners including the Alliance of Civilizations towards intercultural understanding and defeating the propagators of hatred and intolerance22.

  1. The Dialogue got its big start with A Common Word between Us and You, sent by the Ulema to Pope Benedict XIV. That missive is so full of al-Taqeyya & kitman that I created a new blog, Go Burn With Muhammad to expose it. Moe’s idea of Dialogue was ‘you surrender or we conquer you’. The modern Dialogue is more subtle, but the bottom line is the same.
  2. Many Muslims do not assimilate, they form enclaves and eventually demand the privilege of operating them under Shari’ah.
  3. The OIC is practicing projection. Islam is the propagator of hatred and intolerance. Those who doubt this fact should read the litany of hateful and violent Qur’an verses in the Calcutta Quran Petition.

On page 27, paragraph h gives us another important clue. They are going to push for a protocol to ICERD. The protocol, unlike the resolutions passed by the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, will be binding international law, enforcible by the ICJ. The Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards is currently writing it.

Existing international laws on incitement to religious hatred including the International Convention on All forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief, the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the country in which they live, the Declaration on the rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities and the relevant UN Resolutions must be implemented.

Violation of the above listed covenants is an issue that can and should backfire on Islam. If they were strictly enforced, the Qur’an, hadith, tafsir & Shari’ah would be banned, proscribed by law. We need to make that happen. To the best of my knowledge, the International Qur’an Petition is the only effort along that line.

It is likely that much of the resolution will be boilerplate from previous editions. The ’08 Defamation of Religions Resolution is a likely model. My analysis of the Nov. 8 ‘ 08 draft will either put you to sleep or rouse you to sign the petition at Open Doors.

October 19, 2009 Posted by | United Nations | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

UNHRC US Delegation Reveals Treachery


The  U.S. Delegation to the UNHRC  uttered and published a statement on a human rights report. That statement exposes the  Obama administration’s treason to scrutiny; I can not resist.  I have therefore selected excerpts for dissection. [Emphasis added.]

Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-38_E.pdf

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,UNGA,,,4ab0a9180,0.html

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/493/42/PDF/N0849342.pdf?OpenElement

The Human Rights Council – 12th session
Statement by the Delegation of the United States of America
Delivered by Sarah Cleveland
Geneva, 30 September 2009

While we do not support the concept of “defamation of religions” for reasons well known to this Council, my government is strongly committed to religious freedom and has condemned the use of negative and derogatory stereotypes and discrimination and/or discriminatory policies. We recognize that such stereotyping and discrimination affects individuals of all faiths and races, and express our strong condemnation of the types of such intolerance provided in the report.

It is good to read that the Obama administration does not support the concept of defamation of  Islam, but it would be better  if they would emphatically condemn it. The term “negative and derogatory stereotypes” raises a red flag.  Its implication: ‘all Muslims are evil’ its reality: Islam is evil. It is a veiled reference to Geert Wilders’ video Fitna and the infamous Danish Cartoons. Once that overly broad term is enshrined in law, it will be used to criminalize all criticism of Islam.

As noted in our response to the High Commissioner on the issue of defamation of religion, the United States believes the best way for governments to address the issues underlying intolerance is to develop effective legal regimes to address acts of discrimination and bias-inspired crime; to condemn hateful speech and proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups. We strive to do this while vigorously defending the freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

Crime is crime, regardless of the identity of the victim. Rape or robbery, assault or murder, the effect is the same whether the victims is straight or queer, Atheist or Muslim and ought to carry equal penalty dependent on the offense, not the victim.

Condemning hateful speech raises the issue of definition. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared Fitna and the Danish Cartoons to be hate speech, following the lead of the OIC. From their viewpoint, any truthful criticism of Islam is hateful speech.  Their tactical objective is to criminalize all criticism of Islam so that we will be completely disarmed in the war of ideas.  The Obama administration is siding with the enemy, against the First Amendment right of free expression.

The advocacy of proactively reaching out to all religious communities … especially minority groups points out significant hypocrisy.

  • condemned the use of negative and derogatory stereotypes and discrimination
  • proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups

The inconsistency should be immediately obvious to everyone. So should the second incidence of hypocrisy  in that paragraph.

  • condemn hateful speech
  • while vigorously defending … freedom of expression

When the cartoonists pointed out the fact that Muhammad was a terrorist,  their  art was condemned as hateful speech. The OIC and its factotums in  the UN  Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism; I refuted that assertion in Freedom of Opinion and Expression by revealing the source of the association. That is truth, not hate speech. President Obama would condemn it.

Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are serious challenges facing the international community and the United States believes they must be examined methodically and deliberately. The United States submits that this process of self-examination and action by the international community begin with greater opportunities to exchange views and address empirical data and practice on matters related to racial, ethnic, and religious diversity, discrimination, and intolerance – notably through discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards – so as to broaden our common understanding of these important issues and provide a solid foundation for a broad-based consensus for further actions and initiatives.

You think that racism refers to irrational hatred of people whose skin color is different. That is not what the word means to the OIC and UN. To them,  it  means criticism of and enmity to Islam.

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

Since the publication of the Durban II Preliminary Document,  when you read racism in a UN document, you can translate it as Islamophobia. No word is safe in the Orwellian UN.  Related intolerance is a code phrase for the same concept. Islamophobia implies irrational fear and loathing. What is irrational about fear and loathing of a war cult which has murdered 270*106 people in the last 1386 years?

The Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards has an abstract name which contains no hint of its purpose. The committee is a subset of the UNHRC. Its purpose is to write a legally binding protocol to ICERD. The protocol will make criticism of Islam a criminal offense in international law.  The Obama administration just endorsed that damnable program of action which directly contravenes the First Amendment. The details are contained in a series of blog posts.

The various national submissions to the committee are contained in this pdf file: Outline for the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards Consultations.  The Non-Paper Paper, which makes the objective crystal clear, is contained in this pdf file: http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/7750.pdf.

October 13, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Netanyahu Wastes His Breath


An email from UCI informed me of a transcript of remarks by Benjamin Netanyahu. I have selected several excerpts for analysis. David Ben Ariel has an excellent moral critique of the speech.

The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death. The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day.

Islam vs Harbi is not a function of fanaticism. It is a function of the foundational doctrines of Islam as enshrined in the Qur’an and exemplified in the hadith. Islam began in the seventh century, 610. Muhammad first attacked camel caravans returning to Mekkah, later, as his army grew, he attacked the local Jewish settlements.  Muslims are commanded to conquer the entire world for Allah. Muslims are warned that they can not obtain admission to Paradise until they kill the last Jew.

That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction, and the most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world`s most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism? Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

Take action; what action? Sanctions will not have the desired effect. The Imams will continue their bomb project and their oppression regardless of sanctions and resolutions.  Bomb the centrifuge plants? That will result in a temporary delay at best. No, it is necessary to invade Iran and remove the regime from power. It is necessary to replace the regime with a secular democracy.

It won’t be done because the Security Council operates by consensus. Iran is a client state of China and Russia, who will veto any effective action. None of the mice has the courage to bell the cat.

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

No, the United Nations stands with dictators & tyrants, not with slaves yearning for freedom.

Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy`s civilian population from harm`s way. Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

The UNHRC is loaded with a Muslim majority. It serves the interests of Islam, not the interest of justice and human rights.


By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth! What a perversion of justice!

Delegates of the United Nations, will you accept this farce? Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

That is no reversion, the institution has been co-opted and corrupted by the forces of evil, who have never released and will never release their grip on it.


If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here`s why. When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense.

What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country – of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

The UN will always stand with Muslims against Jews because 57 of its members are dominated by Islam and too many other nations are allied with them for economic reasons.

I am extremely offended by the expression: “risks for peace“. Israel can not possibly obtain peace by “taking risks”. Any and every concession Israel makes will be interpreted as a sign of weakness and lack of will. Any and every concession and “good will gesture” will pay dividends of escalating terror, not of peace.  Peace is at the end of a long road that leads to the Islamic cemetery.

Draw a circle around Israel, with a radius equal to the range of the most powerful rocket  in Iran’s arsenal. Remove all Muslims from the area within that circle and keep them out. Thus you will obtain temporary peace. Otherwise, you will never obtain peace.

There are some fatal facts which must be faced. Few  men have the courage to face them. [Emphasis added.]
Why did Umar invade Israel in 638?

Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2477
Narrated Ibn Hawalah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: It will turn out that you will be armed troops, one is Syria, one in the Yemen and one in Iraq. Ibn Hawalah said: Choose for me, Apostle of Allah, if I reach that time. He replied: Go to Syria, for it is Allah’s chosen land, to which his best servants will be gathered but if you are unwilling, go to your Yemen, and draw water from your tanks, for Allah has on my account taken special charge of Syria and its people.

Allah took special charge of the Levant on Moe’s account, It is Allah’s chosen land.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.”

Allah owns the whole world, and he gave it to Moe; the Hijaz was not the only place Moe wanted to rid of Jews.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “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.”

“The Hour” means Judgment Day, when the Muslims hope for admission to Paradise.  They must kill the last Jew before they can gain admission.

7:167. And (remember) when your Lord declared 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. Verily, your Lord is Quick in Retribution (for the disobedient, wicked) and certainly He is Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful (for the obedient and those who beg Allâh’s Forgiveness).

Allah will continually send someone to humiliate and torment the Jews. Who will he send? Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir of this ayeh has a clue for us.

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.

Allah made some promises to the Muslims, here is a sample.

3:125. “Yes, if you hold on to patience and piety, and the enemy comes rushing at you; your Lord will help you with five thousand angels having marks (of distinction).”

13:41. See they not that We gradually reduce the land (of disbelievers, by giving it to the believers, in war victories) from its outlying borders. And Allâh judges, there is none to put back His Judgment and He is Swift at reckoning.

8:66. Now Allâh has lightened your (task), for He knows that there is weakness in you. So if there are of you a hundred steadfast persons, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand of you, they shall overcome two thousand with the Leave of Allâh. And Allâh is with As-Sâbirin (the patient ones, etc.).

Allah commanded perpetual war against the Jews. Allah will continually send Muslims to humiliate and torment the Jews. Allah will give them victory. Allah will give them an advantage disproportionate to their numbers. Allah will give them the land.

By recapturing a tiny fragment of her ancient patrimony, and defeating Muslims in five wars, Israel proves Allah’s promises to be vain. She points to the fact that Allah is an impotent idol.  That is the ultimate blasphemy. Muslims can never tolerate it. If Muslims lose their faith, the Imams and tyrants lose their power; they will never tolerate that!  They must reconquer Israel, and they will never cease from attacking her until they succeed.

The bottom line: get rid of Islam or suffer perpetual attack.  President Obama and the UN side with your enemy; they are not going to help you. You must help yourself.  Get a clue before  it is too late!

September 27, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , | Leave a comment

Rhetoric/Incidents: Islam’s Hypocrisy


In the context of  seeking hate crime prosecution in a Californian assault case, CAIR brought up a statement by CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper.

“Our nation’s religious, political and community leaders need to address the growing anti-Muslim rhetoric on the Internet and on talk radio that can lead to such incidents,”

Hooper was demanding enforcement of Islamic blasphemy laws, implying that  assaults on Muslims are directly linked to criticism of Islam by bloggers and talk radio hosts.  He was echoing the rhetoric of U.N. General Assembly and UNHRC resolutions condemning “defamation of 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 Islam or any other religion, as well as targeting of religious symbols
  • Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination,
    intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

More recently, the President of the Ad Hoc Committee On Complementary Standards  issued a “Non-Paper Paper”  outlining strategy for a protocol to ICERD. Pay close attention to this critical excerpt.

5- Incitement to racial, national and religious hatred

  1. There is a need for further clarifying and reinforcing at the international level existing obligations on the eradication of all incitement to hatred and ‘ discrimination in any form and to prohibit by law, propaganda for war and advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to  discrimination, hostility or violence.
  2. In this context, complementary standards to be developed should observe the following parameters:
    • Article 4 of ICERD shall be extended to the crime of incitement to racial hatred covering offenses motivated by religious hatred against immigrant communities.
    • The protection provided shall extend to all individuals and groups within the jurisdiction of the State Party.
    • The prohibitions shall equally cover acts committed by any individual, group or organization, including political and media organizations as well as by national or local public authorities.
    • The provisions shall apply to any act which, in purpose or effect, incites discrimination, hostility or violence.

In recent months, there have been news reports of rioting and anti-Christian pogroms in India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria & Kenya. When do those events take place? When did the rioting over the Danish Cartoons take place? Why do riots happen immediately after Juma prayer services? What is preached in those sermons?

Muslims want Fiitna and similar revelations criminalize because the connection between the Qur’an & Islamic sermons and riots is revealed therein. They want this and similar blog posts criminalize because I expose their hypocrisy.  Predators who slither in dark crevices and under rocks do not like being exposed in the light of truth.

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.” [Emphasis added.]

The Secretary General labeled Fitna “hate speech” & “incitement to violence” . Click the link and watch the documentary. Where is the hate speech? Where is the incitement? They are only in the Qur’an, hadith & Kutbah displayed; they do not flow from the lips of Geert Wilders.

There is plenty of hate speech and incitement to violence in the Qur’an, enough to make Islam a constant static violation of ICERD & ICCPR. This fact is fully documented in the International Qur’an Petition. It is Islam that must be outlawed, not ‘Islamophobia’.

September 2, 2009 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness | , , , , , | 4 Comments

Stop Sharia!!!


From J. Sekulow at ACLJ comes word that Egypt has submitted the annual Defamation of Religions resolution to a U.N. committee. Sekulow expects a vote to occur within a few weeks.

He reports that the ECLJ has been engaged in heavy lobbying this week, attempting to preserve our precious liberty. A recent blog post: U.N. Resolving to Silence Islamophobes explains why the resolution is absolutely intolerable. It also contains links to the draft resolution, ECLJ’s legal analysis of the resolution, and related blog posts & petitions.

ACLJ has a petition against the resolution.   I am one of the 86,539 who have signed their petition. I urge you to join us in condemning Islam’s attempt to throw the net of their blasphemy law over our heads.

Related Sharia: (Islamic Law)

[Emphasis added.]

O11.10 [Dhimmitude: the treaty ‘protecting’ conquered Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians from further egregious predation.]

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:

-1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her;

-2- conceals spies of hostile forces;

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-4- kills a Muslim;

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

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

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

-1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,” or “I am Allah”-unless one’s tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

-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;

-8- to mockingly say, “I don’t know what faith is”;

-9- to reply to someone who says, “There is no power or strength save through Allah”; “Your saying `There’s no power or strength, etc,’ won’t save you from hunger”;

-10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, “This is through the decree of Allah,” to reply, “I act without the decree of Allah”;

-11- to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also “kafir”);

-12- when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, “La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah” (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) ), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

-13- to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

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

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

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-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). )

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum”;

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

[Reliance of the Traveller, Book O: Justice.]

I am not a Dhimmi; nor will I become one. By God, I will not respect, tolerate, nor will I obey, any Goddamn law, statute, treaty, rule or regulation, whether International, Federal, State or local which attempts to impose any part of Dhimmitude upon me. I will resist, cursing Islam and its agents, with my last breath! That is my stand. Whats yours? If you stand with me, you will sign the ACLJ’s petiton, linked above and the two petitions linked immediately below and exhort everyone within your circle of influence to do the same.

October 25, 2008 Posted by | dhimmitude, Islam, Politics, Religion, United Nations | , , , , | 3 Comments

U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext & Context


Update Dec 20, 2009:

The first article linked above discusses the substance of the final draft, the second discusses the trend toward reduced support for the concept of defamation of religions. The information presented below also applies to the  latest posts.

Comprehension of the meaning of the recent General Assembly & UNHRC resolutions on ‘Defamation of Religions’ requires reference to previous resolutions and contemporaneous statements which demonstrate the intent of the authors.
The purpose of this blog post is to provide that context.
Other documents may be helpful, particularly those referenced in the texts The OHCHR has a table of Human Rights Documents. The links in the right hand column are to pdf files in various languages; English is denoted by the letter E. Some of the documents are not available there in English. Documents referenced in quotes but not linked here may be available from that list. If not, try your favorite search engine.

United Nothing has an extremely informative article: Islamism Grows Stronger at the United Nations by David Littman. Littman reveals important background information about the U.N. resolutions under consideration. The U.K. Parliament has a Memorandum submitted by the National Secular Society
& IHEU. The memorandum contains information not easily found elsewhere and a good bibliography. These two articles provide some details of the intent of those who proposed the resolutions.

Thirty-sixth session 1981 Agenda item 75 Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly 36/55.
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

Concerned by manifestations of intolerance and by the existence of discrimination in matters of religion or belief still in evidence in some areas of the world, Resolved to adopt all necessary measures for the speedy elimination of such intolerance in all its forms and manifestations and to prevent and combat discrimination on the ground of religion or belief,

The General Assembly expressed concern and resolve to “adopt all necessary measures”. What is the meaning of that expression?

Article 4

1. All States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life.

2. All States shall make all efforts to enact or rescind legislation where necessary to prohibit any such discrimination, and to take all appropriate measures to combat intolerance on the grounds of religion or other beliefs in this matter.

“States shall take effective measures:; this implies the passage and enforcement of legislation. “All states shall make all efforts to enact or rescind legislation ” ; an explicit imperative! The intention is unmistakably clear: the resolution is designed to influence national legislation.

MEMRI Special Dispatch Series – No. 1089 reveals a February 3, 2006 sermon by Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research.

“The governments must be pressured to demand that the U.N. adopt a clear resolution or law that categorically prohibits affronts to prophets – to the prophets of the Lord and His messengers, to His holy books, and to the religious holy places. This is so that nobody can cause them harm. They enacted such laws in order to protect the Jews and Judaism. Like some Danes have said: ‘We can mock Jesus and his mother.’ They were asked: ‘Can you mock the Jews?’ Here they stopped. The Jews are protected by laws – the laws that protect Semitism, and nobody can say even one word about the number [of victims] in the alleged Holocaust. Nobody can do so, even if he is writing an M.A. or Ph.D. thesis, and discussing it scientifically. Such claims are not acceptable. When Roger Garaudy talked about it, he was sentenced to jail, according to the laws. We want laws protecting the holy places, the prophets, and Allah’s messengers.”

What does the Sheikh want? “demand that the U.N. adopt a clear resolution or law that categorically prohibits affronts to prophets “…”They enacted such laws in order to protect the Jews and Judaism”…”We want laws protecting the holy places, the prophets, and Allah’s messengers.” What could be more clear? Islam demands the enactment of laws prohibiting denunciation of Islam!

Kofi Annon held a press conference February 8, 2006 where he made remarks relevant to this issue.

Let me say that, honestly, I do not understand why any newspaper will publish the cartoons today. It is insensitive, it is offensive, it is provocative, and they should see what has happened around the world. This does not mean that I am against freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. Yes, I am for that, but as I have indicated in the past, freedom of speech is not a license. It does entail exercising responsibility and judgment, and quite honestly I cannot understand why any editor will publish cartoons at this time which inflames, and pours oil on the fire.

Clearly, the Secretary General was angered by the publication of the Danish Cartoons. He would not grant them the protection of the right of freedom of expression.

Let me start by saying that we issued a statement. I worked with the Secretary General of the Islamic Conference, with the European [Union High] Representative [Javier] Solana, and we came up with a joint statement which I think speaks for the vast majority of states. And the ambassadors of the OIC here at the UN have also issued a statement which also came out yesterday, and I met with them yesterday, and I don’t think they are in a confrontational mood at all. In fact they are responsible, and behaving responsibly, and working like all of us to calm the situation. The statement that they introduced in the discussion in the human rights debate is not inflammatory, it is not against blasphemy, it is a statement that would try and underline the need for respect for all religions. So I don’t think it is something that goes counter to the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or even freedom of the press. And so let’s wait and see the final statement that comes out. Obviously they, like me, would want to see the Human Rights Council established as soon as possible. I would want to see it done by the end of this month, so that when, next month, the human rights community comes together in Geneva, they will be meeting under the umbrella of the new Council. It is possible. We can do it, and I urge all the Member States to buckle down and get it done. And in fact, the uproar that we are all discussing here also underscores the importance of respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the rights, both freedom of expression and respect for religious rights.

You can’t have it both ways; you are for or against freedom of expression. Obviously, Kofi is against it.

The next day, SMH.COM.AU provided some interesting details; pay careful attention to the quotes.

Annan also defended an attempt by Islamic nations to insert anti-defamation language into an already controversial founding document for a new UN human rights council to replace the discredited Geneva-based UN Human Rights Commission.

“I met with them and I don’t think they are in a confrontational mood at all,” Annan said.

The text proposed by 57 Islamic countries, obtained by Reuters, would promote universal respect for all religious and cultural values.

It would “prevent instances of intolerance, discrimination, incitement of hatred and violence arising from any actions against religions, prophets and beliefs which threaten the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

It also notes that “defamation of religions and prophets is inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression” and emphasized that states, organizations and the media have a “responsibility in promoting tolerance and respect for religious and cultural values.”

. The agenda of the O.I.C. is clear from those quotes: outlawing criticism of Islam. One part bears repetition:

Annan also defended an attempt by Islamic nations to insert anti-defamation language into an already controversial founding document for a new UN human rights council to replace the discredited Geneva-based UN Human Rights Commission.

May 2, 2006, Ambassador Masood Khan, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, submitted a paper to an O.I.C. conference.

Islam is deliberately equated with terrorism and extremism. In this regard, governments are restrained but the media and academic institutions are given full license to publish thinly veiled hate literature which reinforces popular misperceptions about Islam and Muslims. Those who whip up frenzy against Muslims use fundamentalism as an excuse but they are really wary of the growing influence of the educated, modern and moderate Muslims in Europe, the US and Canada who are moving into mainstream politics and business. That is why sweeping generalisations are used to depict Muslims….

…freedom of expression is exercised selectively, restricting it, and rightly so, in case of anti-Semitism but justifying its unhindered application in regard to Islamophobic publications.

OIC countries in Geneva believe that earnest efforts should be made to address these issues. Over the years, soft human right law, developed by the human right machinery, have elaborated norms and standards for respect of religion. The UN General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights passed resolutions on defamation of religions every year. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination define the delicate balance between freedom of expression and respect for religions. The Covenant, for instance, gives detailed guidance in its Articles 18, 19, and 20 on the desired equilibrium. According to these articles, every one has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; but freedom of expression is subject to certain restrictions necessary for “…respect of the rights or reputations of others.” The right to freedom of expression is thus not absolute. It does not give the right to insult others or hurt their sensibilities. These two rights – freedom of speech and respect for religions- are complementary, not contradictory.

In the United Nations, however, there is a juridical vacuum which needs to be filled. We do not have stout international laws on respect for religions. Every now and then when a clash emerges we start scraping through blunt legal instruments or rely on political rhetoric.

With these objectives in mind, we would use the Human Rights Council to develop norms to promote dialogue and understanding among followers of different religions and explore the possibility of drafting a convention on respect for religions.

Re-read those quotes with special attention to the parts I emphasized. The O.I.C. agenda is outcome oriented, and legislation is the desired outcome. They want to put an end to our ability to reveal the truth about their murder cult

July 2, 2006. Kofi Annan and the O.I.C. held a joint news conference. One thing stands out.

We believe freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion, and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions.

Why in Hell should we respect Islam’s supremacism & triumphalism? Why in Hell should we respect Islam’s sacraments: conquest, genocide & terror? Surely not because the O.I.C. and the Secretary General say so!

March 23, 2007, the UNHRC resolves A/HRC/4/L.12.

Urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racistand xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that

constitute incitement racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence;

8. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and

constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

They are calling for passage of laws.

10. Emphasizes that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which
should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations as provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs;

    11. 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 towards Islam or any other religion;

How in Hell can we be expected to respect a Muslim’s ‘right‘ to ‘believe‘ that he has a right to kill or plunder & enslave us because we do not submit to Islam?

At the end of March, 2007, the UNHRC published their annual report.

In A resolution on combating defamation OF religion, the Council urged States ton take resolute action ton prohibit the dissemination OF racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed RK any religion or its followers that constitute incitement tons racial and religious have-talks, hostility or violence, and thus urged States ton provide adequate protection against acts OF have-talks, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation OF religion.

“urged States ton take resolute action ton prohibit the dissemination OF racist and xenophobic ideas and material”
Legislation is clearly implied.

May 17. 2007 THE THIRTY FOURTH SESSION OF THE ISLAMIC CONFERENCE OF FOREIGN MINISTERS (SESSION OF PEACE, PROGRESS AND HARMONY) resolved:

We condemn the growing trend of Islamophobia and systematic discrimination against the adherents of Islam. We call upon the international community to prevent incitement to hatred and discrimination against the Muslims and take effective measures to combat defamation of religions and acts of negative stereotyping of people based on religion, belief or ethnicity.

Obviously, “take effective measures” means pass & enforce legislation.

June7, 2007 OSCE CONFERENCE ON COMBATING DISCRIMINATION AND PROMOTING MUTUAL RESPECT AND UNDERSTANDING heard from Ambassador Hemayet Uddin, Director General, \Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

The phenomenon of Islamophobia now concerns everybody. The United Nations has
tried to address the issue by holding several seminars. The former UN Secretary General
Kofi Anan in a speech on 7th December 2004 stated inter alia that Islam’s tenets are
frequently distorted and taken out of context, with particular acts or practices being taken
to represent or to symbolize a rich and complex faith. He said that “some claim that Islam
is incompatible with democracy, or irrevocably hostile to modernity and the rights of
women. And in too many circles, disparaging remarks about Muslims are allowed to pass without censure, with the result that prejudice acquires a veneer of acceptability.
Stereotypes also depict Muslims as opposed to the West, despite a history not only of
conflict but also of cooperation, and of influencing and enriching each other’s art and
science. European civilization would not have advanced to the extent it did had Christian
scholars not benefited from the learning and literature of Islam in the Middle Ages and
later”.

We are often confronted with the dilemma of setting limits to the media’s right
to freedom of expression. The media has its own values and right to freedom of
expression is surely sacrosanct. But the exercise of those rights have to be tempered with
responsibility to avoid anarchy or violence
. It has to be ensured that the power in
possession of the modern day media is handled in a most responsible manner and not
misused or abused by utterances, writings or caricatures that may incite intolerance and
destabilize societies.
Criticism or commentary must be constructive and should not run contrary to
the international community’s efforts to develop tolerance and mutual understanding.
The cause of promoting tolerance and understanding may be defeated if one were to take a
position of championing freedom of expression by publishing, broadcasting or telecasting
items knowing fully that the report may spark off violent consequences.

. Two serious examples of overstretching the right of freedom of expression
were the publication of the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in a Danish
newspaper and reproduced in other recognized news papers such as the Le Monde and
the remarks made by His Holiness Pope Benedict involving Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in September last year. These incidents had resulted in shock and anger throughout the
Muslim world and was seen as the Western world’s indifference to the values that are
most sacred to the Muslims. Of course many Western governments reacted against the
reports and a statement of regret was issued by the Vatican. At the same time most
maintained that they could not intervene in the right to freedom of expression.

The O.I.C. would censor Pope Benedict! He quoted a Byzantine Emperor who spoke the honest truth about Islam; that Moe’s significant innovation was the sanctification of violence. Read the statement again, paying careful attention to the emphasis I added.

08/21/07 RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED FORMS OF INTOLERANCE: FOLLOW-UP TO AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DURBAN DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION
In particular, the Special Rapporteur calls for a strengthened commitment of political
leaders and intellectuals to strongly reject and condemn any expression of hate and xenophobia, particularly those of racist and xenophobic political platforms in the programmes of democratic parties and in the governmental alliances that enable the promoters of these platforms to implement their agendas with a clout of democratic legitimacy. Member States are also called upon to integrate, in their national policies, the promotion of dialogue between cultures and religions, and avoid policies, postures and statements inspired by the divisive concept of the clash of civilizations. Besides, given the challenge posed by the growing instrumentalization of freedom of expression by extreme right groups, the Special Rapporteur calls for a renewed reflection, by all bodies concerned, on the balance and complementarity between freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

In May 2007, the thirty-fourth session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers adopted
the Islamabad Declaration, which condemns the growing trend of Islamophobia and systematic
discrimination against the adherents of Islam and calls upon the international community to
prevent incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims and take effective measures to combat defamation of religions and acts of negative stereotyping of people based on religion, belief or ethnicity.

77. In the light of the polarized and confrontational reading of these articles, the Special
Rapporteur wishes to recall the recommendation made to the Council in his joint report
with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (A/HRC/2/3) to promote a
more profound reflection on their interpretation. In particular, both Special Rapporteurs
encouraged the Human Rights Committee to consider the possibility of adopting
complementary standards on the interrelations between freedom of expression, freedom of
religion and non-discrimination, in particular by drafting a general comment on article 20.

(b) The historical and cultural depth of all forms of defamation of religions, and
therefore the need to complement legal strategies with an intellectual and ethical strategy relating to the processes, mechanisms and representations which constitute those manifestations over time;

9-10 October 2007 The Text of the Statement of Mr. Ufuk Gokcen, Adviser to the OIC Secretary General,
Read on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference General Secretariat At the OSCE Chairmanship Conference on Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims, Cordoba

However, in the wider picture, we do not see that the challenge that we face today can be
properly addressed, if the official authorities and politicians do not assume ethically and
morally righteous and responsible attitude in front of the masses, when discrimination
and intolerance against Muslims, and defamation of Islam as a religion and denigration of its most revered symbols are condoned under the exercise of freedom of expression and
press, in a way to surmount time to time to explicit and calculated incitement to hatred.

The constant focus is on freedom of expression reflecting negatively on Islam.

12/10/07 CHAIR OF THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
STATEMENT BY H.E. MR. JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ, AMBASSADOR, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA, ON BEHALF OF THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT

But reflection just for the sake of reflection is not enough. Concrete actions and not rhetoric is what those in need expect from the international community. As we are speaking here in this august chamber, out there in the world many phenomena like poverty, underdevelopment, marginalisation, instability, illiteracy, hunger, malnutrition, lack of access to healthcare, imposition of cultural models, discrimination on multiple basis, defamation of religions and religious intolerance, among many other factors, continue to prevail and, what is most worrying, continue to increase. We must address all these issues if we really want to create a world of dignity and justice for all.

“Concrete actions, and not rhetoric” translation: legislation.

02/20/08 A/HRC/7/19 Report submitted by Mr. Doudou Diène

To reverse these worrying trends, the Special Rapporteur is continuing to promote, in all his activities, the development of a dual strategy: political and legal, on the one hand, aiming to arouse and strengthen the political will of Governments to combat racism and xenophobia and enabling States to acquire the legal and administrative instruments for this purpose, in line with the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; and cultural, intellectual and ethical, on the other hand, targeting the root causes of those trends, in particular the value systems which legitimize them, the identity constructs – including the writing and teaching of history – which support them, and the rejection of diversity and multiculturalism which sustains them.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

72. The Special Rapporteur invites the Human Rights Council to draw the attention of
member States to the alarming signs of regression in efforts to combat racism, racial
discrimination and xenophobia, particularly the upsurge in racist violence, and to remind
them of the crucial importance of political will in the refusal to trivialize racism,
xenophobia and intolerance, the rejection of their use in politics and electoral campaigns,
and the systematic combating of racist and xenophobic political platforms.
73. In this regard, he invites the Council to encourage member States to adopt, as a
matter of urgency, national legislation to combat racism, racial discrimination and
xenophobia, pursuant to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination.

  • legal strategy
  • legal instruments
  • national legislation

This statement, made little more than one month prior to the UNH’RC’s resolution, must be considered as a source of its spirit if not its literal content.

3/18/08 COMBATING INTOLERANCE AND DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST MUSLIMS Ambassador Ömür Orhun OIC

Declaratory statements are of course welcome, but are not enough. We must put into
practice what we preach
. In other words, we must not only share the same basic values, we
must also act
in line with this conviction.

Islamophobia is a clear manifestation of hate crime and as such generates fear, feelings
of stigmatization, marginalization and rejection. The net result is heightened anxiety and
rising violence. As a hate crime, Islamophobia is also an assault on identity and human
dignity.

Translation: opposition to Islam’s conquest, genocide & terrorism is a hate crime and assaults human dignity.

Thirdly, they must define hate crimes broadly and address the information deficit.
(That is to say, collect, analyze and disseminate information related to hate crimes.)
Fourth, they must enact adequate legislation and implement this legislation
effectively
.
In conjunction with national legislation, they should also implement
international commitments and agreed norms.

e) Governments, at least at a rhetorical level, seem to accept notions such as respect to religious values, inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue and harmony, value of education and the need for strong political leadership. I hope these will not remain rhetorical statements, but be put into practice.

  • Broad definition of hate crimes? Our Supreme Court throws out laws on grounds of excessive broadness!
  • Must enact … legislation!!
  • Respect to religious values? Respect is earned on merit, not legislatted!! In Hell I’ll respect Jihad, genocide & terrorism!!! That spew of excrement came just days before the UNHRC resolution was passed. Who can overlook the obvious connection?

28 March 2008 A/HRC/7/L.11

  1. Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence;
  2. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;
  3. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an
    essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

The UNHRC is urging member states to enact and enforce legislation restricting freedom of expression!! The outstanding exemplar of hypocrisy contained in the tenth point should stick in everyone’s eye. Islam has neither respect nor tolerance for Judiasm & Christianity; cursed & declared perpetual war against them.

A March 28, 2008 Reuters article quotes Secretary General Ban ki-Moon’s remarks about Fitna.

  • “offensively anti-Islamic”
  • “There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence”
  • “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”
  • “Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility”

Fitna juxtaposed Qur’an quotes with outrageous statements by Islamic clerics and rioters. There is nothing false, malicious, contrived or defamatory in it; nothing but objective truth. From all of the text, pretext & context, it is obvious that the resolution is a blatant attempt to make general application of Sharia’s blasphemy provisions.

UN Watch has the Preliminary document of the African Regional Conference Preparatory to the Durban Review Conference in Microsoft Word Format. The Provisional Agenda and questionnaire replies are available at UNON.

Lets take a peek into Pandora’s box. [Emphasis added.]

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

See Durban II: Screw You for more information.
Wherever any of the above cited documents urges legislation against racism, you can substitute ‘Islamophobia’. Islam is a war machine, not a race. It has victimized people of many races.

September 8, 2008 Posted by | Politics, United Nations | , , , | 6 Comments

UN Resolutions Revisited: Defamation of Religion


[Edited 03/19/09]

While the original post and those linked below, in the previous edit will provide valuable background information, the revisions of 03/17/09 have rendered some of that material obsolescent. My latest post on this subject: Durban II Sham Revision: the Details

contains links to the revised text and explains  why that text is unacceptable to lovers of liberty.

[Edited: 03/06/09]

This post, while among the most popular, is not the most up to date. The General Assembly passed a new resolution “combating defamation of religions” 12/18/08. A link to that resolution is included, along with detailed and documented rational objections to the same in this post, which I urge you to read:

Quit Aiding Our Enemies!

In this post, you will find my detailed criticism of a statement by four human rights experts condeming the resolution.

Defamation Resolutions: Enough Already!

This related post dissects and refutes the amended resolution just prior to its passage:

Defamation of Religions Resolution Revised

This related post dissects and refutes the resolution as passed by committee:

UN Renews Censorship Demand

This related post exposes the lies & deceptions included in a related U.N. resolution:

UN: Eliminating Intolerance or Protecting it?

The current post, while outdated, still contains useful links and information. Please read it carefully and follow the links.

Now comes The American Center for Law & Justice complaining in a petition of anti-Christian / pro-Islamic bigotry on the part of the UNHRC Unfortunately they do not provide detailed information about the resolution of which they complain nor do they provide a link to it. More than forty thousand people have endorsed the complaint, apparently without knowing the details. Likewise World Net Daily skims over the subject without digging into the gritty details. The G.A. resolution condemning criticism of Islam is highly abstract, too vague & flowery to represent with a few excerpts. The bottom line is this: they want western nations to censor our criticism of Islam. They will not tolerate public exposure of the evil doctrines & actions of Islam. My blog post on the subject usually receives at most two hits per day. It suddenly spiked to eight. I assume that the spike resulted from the ACLJ & WND posts which leave readers hungry for details.

This is not a new issue. The International Humanist and Ethical Union reports that UNCHR passed resolutions against defamation of religion beginning in 1999 and continuing in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. The UNHRC followed suite in 2007.

In August ’07, the Special Rapporteur reported to the General Assembly concerning Islamophobia, etc.
In December of ’07, the General Assembly resolved to oppose defamation of religions. The arrogant hypocrisy of the report is fully exposed in this blog post: Defamation of Islam.

In December ’07, the U.N. General Assembly passed a similar resolution whose arrogant, imbecilic hypocrisy is laid bare in this blog post: United Nations Ban Criticism of Islam.

At the end of March ’08, the UNHRC passed a similar resolution the arrogant hypocrisy of which is exposed in this blog post, which ends with a call to action: More UNHRC AssWholliness.

During the same time period, Geert Wilders uttered & published his short subject, Fitna. The Secretary General of the UN took advantage of the occasion to express his opinion of defamation of Islam. In the process, he exposed his the black hole which substitutes for his soul and earned every term of opprobrium that can be hurled at him by outraged Kuffar. I took advantage of Moon’s madness to expose his hypocrisy in You’ve Been Mooned!
.
The issue is one sided; the resolution of 1999 explicitly cited defamation of Islam. Anything we write about Islam is criminal; slander, libel & blasphemy. But no significant mention is made of epithets such as “gutter religion” hurled in the other direction. As I proved in The Defamation of Jesus Christ, Islam’s canon of scripture is full of negative references to Judaism & Christianity. Obviously, the UN is not about to ban the Koran or prayers & sermons based upon it.

the OHCHR resolution of ’05 is available as a Word document. This excerpt alone should make your blood boil.

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

That is the sort of malicious, malignant malarkey I disprove in the blog posts referenced earlier. Terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam, sanctified by a series of Koran verses and bragged about by Muhammad.

Recognizes that in the context of the fight against terrorism and the reaction to counter‑terrorism measures, defamation of religions becomes an aggravating factor that contributes to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of target groups, as well as their economic and social exclusion;

“Sons of apes and pigs”, “worst of living creatures”, “Allah’s curse be upon them”, “…destination is Hell…”. That sort of defamation is not what the high & mighty are referring to. It is approved because its in the Koran.

Urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;

But you know damn well that does not include 9:29, which declares war on us until we are subjugated & pay extortion. Of course not; its approved because its in the Koran.

It is time to see to the dissolution of the UN, to begin by withdrawing from membership and expelling its headquarters from our land. It is part of the aggressor’s support structure, not a peace maker, and it must go.

July 11, 2008 Posted by | Politics, Religion | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

UNHRC Hyprocisy!


In an email promoting their petition campaign, Act for America mentioned a recent UNHRC resolution which demands censorship of Islam’s critics.
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Seventh session
Agenda item 9
RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED
FORMS OF INTOLERANCE, FOLLOW-UP TO AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE DURBAN DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION
Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference):
draft resolution
7/… Combating defamation of religions
[Passed 03/27/08]

Emphasizing that States, non-governmental organizations, religious bodies and the media
have an important role to play in promoting tolerance and freedom of religion and belief through
education,
Noting with concern that defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony
and instability, at the national and international levels, and leads to violations of human rights,
Noting with deep concern the increasing trend in recent years of statements attacking
religions, including Islam and Muslims, in human rights forums,


1. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of all religions and
manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief;

  • 1:7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
  • 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
  • 98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad  from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.
  • 9:30. And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

So, where is the evidence of your deep concern? Exactly what do you propose to do about the Qur’anic  stereotyping & intolerance ?

2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence
and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be
rejected and combated by all at all levels;

Who the Hell did that? Who identified Islam with terrorism & violence? Who equated Islam with terrorism? Could it be Allah?  Could it be Moe?

  • 2:216. Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.
  • 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.”
  • 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.
  • 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the ScriptureJizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
  • 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allah brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
    Narrated Anas bin Malik:
    Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ 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 and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.“…
  • …Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey….[1.7.331]
  • I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),…[4.52.220]

3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation
of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the
tragic events of 11 September 2001;

Who:

  • hijacked aircraft
  • bombed aircraft
  • flew aircraft into office buildings
  • parked a truck bomb under the World Trade Center
  • bombed subway trains in London & Madrid
  • assaulted and seized a school in Beslan

Was it Muslim men under 40? Was it Jehovah’s Witnesses?  Was it elderly nuns?  Or was it renegade Christians?  Who riots all over the world chanting “Death to…”?  Who proudly proclaims their intention of conquering and dominating the entire world?   If you watched Obsession or Fitna you know who does that. If you watched Islam: What the West Needs to Know you know why.  So exactly why the Hell should we not be carefully observing young Muslim men?

4. Expresses its grave concern at the recent serious instances of deliberate stereotyping
of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media and by political parties and groups in some societies, and at the associated provocation and political exploitation;

Moe was depicted in a cartoon, wearing a bomb on his head. Moe never possessed a bomb; he died before the invention of gunpowder. But he did brag about being made victorious by terror.  Does anyone ever consider Islam’s blasphemy against Jesus Christ?  The Qur’an denies his:

The Hadith depicts Jesus as:

8. Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including through political
institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence;

  • 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.
  • 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the ScriptureJizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
  • 8:65. O Prophet (Muhammad)! Urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast persons amongst you, they will overcome two hundred, and if there be a hundred steadfast persons they will overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are people who do not understand.
  • Section: Stimulation of Desire for Jihad

    [Malik’s Muwatta: Jihad]

  • Obligation of Jihad Riyad us Saliheen, Book 11, Ch. 234
  • O-9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
    The caliph (o-25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o-11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
    “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9.29), [
    The Reliance of the Traveller]

When, exactly, will you prohibit the dissemination of the Qur’an, Hadith & Fiqh???

10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an
essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion;

Why, in view of its contemptible doctrines which sanctify & mandate conquest, genocide & terrorism, should Islam be shielded from universal contempt?  What but the most accursed arrogance postulates a right to conquer & subjugate the entire world; to rape, pillage, plunder & enslave all who do not embrace it and submit to its demon?

June 4, 2008 Posted by | Politics | , , , , , | 1 Comment

%d bloggers like this: