Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Obanination: UN Shitspew

Obanination: UN Shitspew

The narcissist imagines himself
President of the World giving his annual State of the World
to the global parliament. 

    I selected the most egregious and significant lies
for exposure below the transcript. Each lie is linked to my comments
which follow the transcript. Each link has a title invoked by the
mouseover event.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

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

United Nations General Assembly Hall

New York City, New York

10:13 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow
delegates, ladies and gentlemen:  We come together at a crossroads
between war and peace; between disorder and integration; between fear
and hope.

Around the globe, there are
signposts of progress.  The shadow of World War that existed at
the founding of this institution has been lifted, and the prospect of
war between major powers reduced.  The ranks of member states has
more than tripled, and more people live under governments they elected.
Hundreds of millions of human beings have been freed from the prison of
poverty, with the proportion of those living in extreme poverty cut in
half.  And the world economy continues to strengthen after the
worst financial crisis of our lives. 

Today, whether you live in
downtown Manhattan or in my grandmother’s village more than 200 miles
from Nairobi, you can hold in your hand more information than the
world’s greatest libraries.  Together, we’ve learned how to cure
disease and harness the power of the wind and the sun.  The very
existence of this institution is a unique achievement — the people of
the world 7, and to solve their problems together.  I often tell
young people in the United States that despite the headlines, this is
the best time in human history to be born, for you are more likely than
ever before to be literate, to be healthy, to be free to pursue your

And yet there is a pervasive
unease in our world — a sense that the very forces that have brought
us together have created new dangers and made it difficult for any
single nation to insulate itself from global forces.  As we gather
here, an outbreak of Ebola overwhelms public health systems in West
Africa and threatens to move rapidly across borders.  Russian
aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small
ones in pursuit of territorial ambition.  The brutality of terrorists in
Syria and Iraq forces us to look into the heart of darkness.

Each of these problems demands
urgent attention.  But they are also symptoms of a broader problem
— the failure of our international system to keep pace with an
interconnected world. We, collectively, have not invested
in the public health capacity of developing
countries.  Too often, we have failed to enforce international
norms when it’s inconvenient to do so.  And we have not confronted
forcefully enough the intolerance, sectarianism, and hopelessness that
feeds violent extremism in too many parts of the globe.

Fellow delegates, we come
together as united nations with a choice to make.  We can renew
the international system that has enabled so much progress, or we can
allow ourselves to be pulled back by an undertow of instability. 
We can reaffirm our collective responsibility to confront global
problems, or be swamped by more and more outbreaks of
instability.  And for America, the choice is clear:  We
choose hope over fear.  We see the future not as something out of
our control, but as something we can shape for the better through
concerted and collective effort.  We reject fatalism or cynicism
when it comes to human affairs.  We choose to work for the world
as it should be, as our children deserve it to be.

There is much that must be done
to meet the test of this moment.  But today I’d like to focus on
two defining questions at the root of so many of our challenges —
whether the nations here today will be able to renew the purpose of the
UN’s founding; and whether we will come together to reject the cancer of violent

First, all of us — big nations
and small — must meet our responsibility to observe and enforce
international norms.  We are here because others realized that we
gain more from cooperation than conquest.  One hundred years ago,
a World War claimed the lives of many millions, proving that with the
terrible power of modern weaponry, the cause of empire ultimately leads
to the graveyard.  It would take another World War to roll back
the forces of fascism, the notions of racial supremacy, and form this
United Nations to ensure that no nation can subjugate its neighbors and
claim their territory. 

Recently, Russia’s actions in
Ukraine challenge this post-war order.  Here are the facts. 
After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for
reform, their corrupt president fled.  Against the will of the
government in Kyiv, Crimea was annexed.  Russia poured arms into
eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has
killed thousands.  When a civilian airliner was shot down from
areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to
the crash for days.  When Ukraine started to reassert control over
its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the
separatists, and moved troops across the border.

This is a vision of the world in
which might makes right — a world in which one nation’s borders can be
redrawn by another, and civilized people are not allowed to recover the
remains of their loved ones because of the truth that might be
revealed. America stands for something different.  We believe that
right makes might — that bigger nations should not be able to bully
smaller ones, and that people should be able to choose their own future.

And these are simple truths, but
they must be defended. America and our allies will support the people
of Ukraine as they develop their democracy and economy.  We will
reinforce our NATO Allies and uphold our commitment to collective
self-defense.  We will impose a cost on Russia for aggression, and
we will counter falsehoods with the truth.  And we call upon
others to join us on the right side of history — for while small gains
can be won at the barrel of a gun, they will ultimately be turned back
if enough voices support the freedom of nations and peoples to make
their own decisions.

Moreover, a different path is
available — the path of diplomacy and peace, and the ideals this
institution is designed to uphold.  The recent cease-fire
agreement in Ukraine offers an opening to achieve those
objectives.  If Russia takes that path — a path that for
stretches of the post-Cold War period resulted in prosperity for the
Russian people — then we will lift our sanctions and welcome Russia’s
role in addressing common challenges.  After all, that’s what the
United States and Russia have been able to do in past years — from
reducing our nuclear stockpiles to meeting our obligations under the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to cooperating to remove and destroy
Syria’s declared chemical weapons.  And that’s the kind of
cooperation we are prepared to pursue again — if Russia changes

This speaks to a central
question of our global age — whether we will solve our problems
together, in a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect, or whether
we descend into the destructive rivalries of the past.  When
nations find common ground, not simply based on power, but on
principle, then we can make enormous progress.  And I stand before
you today committed to investing American strength to working with all
nations to address the problems we face in the 21st century.

As we speak, America is
deploying our doctors and scientists — supported by our military — to
help contain the outbreak of Ebola and pursue new treatments.  But
we need a broader effort to stop a disease that could kill hundreds of
thousands, inflict horrific suffering, destabilize economies, and move
rapidly across borders.  It’s easy to see this as a distant
problem — until it is not.  And that is why we will continue to
mobilize other countries to join us in making concrete commitments,
significant commitments to fight this outbreak, and enhance our system
of global health security for the long term.

America is pursuing a diplomatic
resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue, as part o4f our commitment to
stop the spread of nuclear weapons and pursue the peace and security of
a world without them.  And this can only take place if Iran seizes
  My message to Iran’s leaders and people
has been simple and consistent:  Do not let this opportunity
pass.  We can reach a solution that meets your energy needs while
assuring the world that your program is peaceful. 

America is and will continue to
be a Pacific power, promoting peace, stability, and the free flow of
commerce among nations.  But we will insist that all nations abide
by the rules of the road, and resolve their territorial
disputes peacefully
, consistent with international law. 
That’s how the Asia-Pacific has grown.  And that’s the only way to
protect this progress going forward. 

America is committed to a
development agenda that eradicates extreme poverty by 2030.  We
will do our part to help people feed themselves, power their economies,
and care for their sick.  If the world acts together, we can make
sure that all of our children enjoy lives of opportunity and

America is pursuing ambitious
reductions in our carbon emissions, and we’ve increased our investments
in clean energy. We will do our part, and help developing nations do
theirs.  But the science tells us we can only succeed in combating
climate change if we are joined in this effort by every other nation,
by every major power.  That’s how we can protect this planet for
our children and our grandchildren.

In other words, on issue after
issue, we cannot rely on a rule book written for a different
century.  If we lift our eyes beyond our borders — if we think
globally and if we act cooperatively — we can shape the course of this
century, as our predecessors shaped the post-World War II age. 
But as we look to the future, one issue risks a cycle of conflict that
could derail so much progress, and that is the cancer of violent
extremism that has ravaged so many parts of the Muslim world.

Of course, terrorism is not
new.  Speaking before this Assembly, President Kennedy put it
well:  “Terror is not a new weapon,” he said.  “Throughout
history it has been used by those who could not prevail, either by
persuasion or example.”  In the 20th century, terror was used by
all manner of groups who failed to come to power through public
support.  But in this century, we have faced a more lethal and
ideological brand of terrorists who have perverted
one of the world’s great religions
.  With access to technology
that allows small groups to do great harm, they
have embraced a nightmarish vision that would divide the world into
adherents and infidels — killing as many innocent civilians as
possible, employing the most brutal methods to intimidate people within
their communities

I have made it clear that
America will not base our entire foreign policy on reacting to
terrorism.  Instead, we’ve waged a focused campaign
against al Qaeda and its associated forces
— taking out their
leaders, denying them the safe havens they rely on.  At the same time, we have reaffirmed
again and again that the United States is not and never will be at war
with Islam. 
Islam teaches peace.  Muslims the
world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice.  And when it comes to America and Islam, there
is no us and them, there is only us — because millions of Muslim
Americans are part of the fabric of our country.

So we reject any suggestion of a
clash of civilizations. Belief in permanent religious
war is the misguided refuge of extremists
who cannot build or
create anything, and therefore peddle only fanaticism and hate. 
And it is no exaggeration to say that humanity’s future depends on us
uniting against those who would divide us along the fault lines of
tribe or sect, race or religion.

But this is not simply a matter
of words.  Collectively, we must take
concrete steps to address the danger posed by religiously motivated
fanatics, and the trends that fuel their recruitment

Moreover, this campaign against extremism goes beyond a narrow security
challenge.  For while we’ve degraded methodically core al Qaeda
and supported a transition to a sovereign Afghan
, extremist ideology has shifted to other
places — particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, where a quarter of young people have no job, where
food and water could grow scarce, where corruption is rampant and 

sectarian conflicts have become
increasingly hard to contain.  

As an international community,
we must meet this challenge with a focus on four areas.  First, the terrorist
group known as ISIL must be degraded and ultimately destroyed

This group has terrorized all
who they come across in Iraq and Syria.  Mothers, sisters,
daughters have been subjected to rape as a weapon of war. 
Innocent children have been gunned down.  Bodies have been dumped
in mass graves.  Religious minorities have been starved to
death.  In the most horrific crimes imaginable, innocent human
beings have been beheaded, with videos of the atrocity distributed to shock the conscience of the world.

No God condones this terror
No grievance justifies
these actions. 
There can be no reasoning — no negotiation —
with this brand of evil.
  The only language understood by
killers like this is the language of force.  So the United States
of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle
this network of death

In this effort, we do not act
alone — nor do we intend to send U.S. troops to occupy foreign
lands.  Instead, we will support Iraqis and Syrians fighting to
reclaim their communities.  We will use our military might in a
campaign of airstrikes to roll back ISIL. 
We will train and
equip forces fighting against these terrorists on the ground

We will work to cut off their financing, and to stop the flow of
fighters into and out of the region.  And already, over 40 nations
have offered to join this coalition. 

Today, I ask the world to join
in this effort.  Those who have joined ISIL should leave the
battlefield while they can.  Those who continue to fight for a
hateful cause will find they are increasingly alone.  For we will
not succumb to threats, and we will demonstrate that the future belongs
to those who build — not those who destroy.  So that’s an
immediate challenge, the first challenge that we must meet.

The second:  It is time
for the world — especially Muslim communities — to explicitly,
forcefully, and consistently reject the ideology of organizations like
al Qaeda and ISIL

It is one of the tasks of all
great religions to accommodate devout faith with a modern,
multicultural world.  No children are born hating, and no children
— anywhere — should be educated to hate other people.  There
should be no more tolerance of so-called clerics who call upon people
to harm innocents because they’re Jewish, or because they’re Christian,
or because they’re Muslim.  It is time for a new compact among the
civilized peoples of this world to eradicate war at its most
fundamental source, and that is the corruption of young minds by
violent ideology.

That means cutting off the
funding that fuels this hate.  It’s time to end the hypocrisy of
those who accumulate wealth through the global economy and then siphon
funds to those who teach children to tear it down.

That means contesting the space
that terrorists occupy, including the Internet and social media. 
Their propaganda has coerced young people to travel abroad to fight
their wars, and turned students — young people full of potential —
into suicide bombers.  We must offer an alternative vision.

That means bringing people of
different faiths together.  All religions have been attacked by
extremists from within at some point, and all people of faith have a responsibility
to lift up the value at the heart of all great religions:  Do unto
thy neighbor as you would do — you would have done unto yourself.

The ideology of ISIL or
al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and
die if it is consistently exposed and
confronted and refuted
in the light of day.  Look at the new
Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies — Sheikh bin Bayyah
described its purpose:  “We must declare war on war, so
the outcome will be peace upon peace.”  Look at the young British
Muslims who responded to terrorist propaganda by starting the
“NotInMyName” campaign, declaring, “ISIS is hiding behind a false
Islam.”  Look at the Christian and Muslim leaders who came
together in the Central African Republic to reject violence; listen to
the Imam who said, “Politics try to divide the religious in our
country, but religion
shouldn’t be a cause of hate, war, or strife

Later today, the Security
Council will adopt a resolution that underscores the responsibility of
states to counter violent extremism.  But resolutions must be
followed by tangible commitments, so we’re accountable when we fall
short.  Next year, we should all be
prepared to announce the concrete steps that we have taken to counter
extremist ideologies
in our own countries — by getting intolerance
out of schools
, stopping radicalization before it spreads, and
promoting institutions and programs that build new bridges of

Third, we must address the cycle
of conflict — especially sectarian conflict — that creates the
conditions that terrorists prey upon.

There is nothing new about wars
within religions.  Christianity endured centuries of vicious
sectarian conflict.  Today, it is violence within Muslim
communities that has become the source of so much human misery. 
It is time to acknowledge the destruction wrought by proxy wars and
terror campaigns between Sunni and Shia across the Middle East. 
And it is time that political, civic and religious leaders reject
sectarian strife.  So let’s be clear:  This is a fight that no one is winning
A brutal civil war in Syria has already killed nearly 200,000 people,
displaced millions.  Iraq has come perilously close to plunging
back into the abyss.  The conflict has created a fertile
recruiting ground for terrorists who inevitably export this violence.

The good news is we also see
signs that this tide could be reversed.  We have a new, inclusive government in Baghdad; a
new Iraqi Prime Minister welcomed by his neighbors; Lebanese factions
rejecting those who try to provoke war.  And these steps must be
followed by a broader truce.  Nowhere is this more necessary than

Together with our partners,
America is training and equipping the Syrian opposition
to be a counterweight to the terrorists
of ISIL and the brutality
of the Assad regime.  But the only lasting solution to Syria’s
civil war is political — an inclusive political transition that
responds to the legitimate aspirations of all Syrian citizens,
regardless of ethnicity, regardless of creed.

Cynics may argue that such an
outcome can never come to pass.  But there is no other way for
this madness to end — whether one year from now or ten.  And it points to the fact
that it’s time for a broader negotiation in the region in which major
powers address their differences directly, honestly, and peacefully
across the table from one another, rather than through gun-wielding
  I can promise you America will remain engaged in the
region, and we are prepared to engage in that effort.

My fourth and final point is a
simple one:  The countries of the Arab and Muslim world must focus
on the extraordinary potential of their people — especially the youth.

And here I’d like to speak
directly to young people across the Muslim world.  You
come from a great tradition that stands for education, not ignorance;
innovation, not destruction; the dignity of life, not murder.
Those who call you away from this path are betraying this tradition,
not defending it.

You have demonstrated that when
young people have the tools to succeed — good schools, education in
math and science, an economy that nurtures creativity and
entrepreneurship — then societies will flourish.  So America will
partner with those that promote that vision.

Where women are full
participants in a country’s politics or economy, societies are more
likely to succeed.  And that’s why we support the participation of
women in parliaments and peace processes, schools and the economy.

If young people live in places
where the only option is between the dictates of a state, or the lure
of an extremist underground, then no counterterrorism strategy can
succeed.  But where a genuine civil society is allowed to flourish
where people can express their views,
and organize peacefully for a better life — then you dramatically
expand the alternatives to terror.

And such positive change need
not come at the expense of tradition and faith.  We see this in
Iraq, where a young man started a library for his peers.  “We link
Iraq’s heritage to their hearts,” he said, and “give them a reason to
stay.”  We see it in Tunisia, where secular and Islamist parties
worked together through a political process to produce a new
constitution.  We see it in Senegal, where civil society thrives
alongside a strong democratic government.  We see it in Malaysia,
where vibrant entrepreneurship is propelling a former colony into the
ranks of advanced economies.  And we see it in Indonesia, where
what began as a violent transition has evolved into a genuine

Now, ultimately, the task of
rejecting sectarianism and rejecting extremism is a generational
task — and a task for the people of the Middle East
themselves.   No external power can bring about a transformation of hearts
and minds
.  But America will be a respectful and constructive
partner.  We will neither tolerate terrorist safe havens, nor act
as an occupying power.  We will take action against threats to our
security and our allies, while building an architecture of
counterterrorism cooperation.  We will increase efforts to lift up
those who counter extremist ideologies and who seek to resolve
sectarian conflict.  And we will expand our programs to support
entrepreneurship and civil society, education and youth — because,
ultimately, these investments are the best antidote to violence.

We recognize as well that
leadership will be necessary to address the conflict
between Palestinians and Israelis
.  As bleak as the landscape
appears, America will not give up on the pursuit of peace. 
Understand, the situation in Iraq and Syria and Libya should cure
anybody of the illusion that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the main
source of problems in the region.  For far too long, that’s been
used as an excuse to distract people from problems at home.  The
violence engulfing the region today has made too many Israelis ready to
abandon the hard work of peace.  And that’s something worthy of
reflection within Israel.

Because let’s be clear: 
The status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable.  We
cannot afford to turn away from this effort — not when rockets are
fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian
children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am President, we will
stand up for the principle that Israelis, Palestinians, the region and
the world will be more just and more safe with two states living side by side,
in peace and security.

So this is what America is
prepared to do:  Taking action against immediate threats, while
pursuing a world in which the need for such action is diminished. 
The United States will never shy away from defending our interests, but
we will also not shy away from the promise of this institution and its
Universal Declaration of Human Rights — the notion that peace is not
merely the absence of war, but the presence of a better life. 

I realize that America’s critics
will be quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up
to our ideals; that America has plenty of problems within its own
borders.  This is true.  In a summer marked by instability in
the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I
know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson,
— where a young man was killed, and a community was
divided.  So, yes, we have our own racial and ethnic
tensions.  And like every country, we continually wrestle with how
to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater
diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.

But we welcome the scrutiny of
the world — because what you see in America is a country that has
steadily worked to address our problems, to make our union more
perfect, to bridge the divides that existed at the founding of this
nation.  America is not the same as it was 100 years ago, or 50
years ago, or even a decade ago.  Because we fight for our ideals,
and we are willing to criticize ourselves when we fall short. 
Because we hold our leaders accountable, and insist on a free press and
independent judiciary.  Because we address our differences in the
open space of democracy — with respect for the rule of law; with a
place for people of every race and every religion; and with an
unyielding belief in the ability of individual men and women to change
their communities and their circumstances and their countries for the

After nearly six years as
President, I believe that this promise can help light the world. 
Because I have seen a longing for positive change — for peace and for
freedom and for opportunity and for the end to bigotry — in the eyes
of young people who I’ve met around the globe.

They remind me that no matter
who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what God
you pray to, or who you love, there is something
fundamental that we all share
.  Eleanor Roosevelt, a champion
of the UN and America’s role in it, once asked, “Where, after all, do
universal human rights begin?  In small places,” she said, “close
to home — so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps
of the world.  Yet they are the world of the individual person;
the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the
factory, farm or office where he works.”

Around the world, young people
are moving forward hungry for a better world.  Around the world,
in small places, they’re overcoming hatred and bigotry and
sectarianism.  And they’re learning to respect each other, despite

The people of the world now look
to us, here, to be as decent, and as dignified, and as courageous as
they are trying to be in their daily lives.  And at this
crossroads, I can promise you that the United States of America will
not be distracted or deterred from what must be done.  We are
heirs to a proud legacy of freedom, and we’re prepared to do what is
necessary to secure that legacy for generations to come.  I ask
that you join us in this common mission, for today’s children and

Thank you very much. 

10:52 A.M. EDT

resolve their
differences peacefully

    There is no possible peaceful resolution to
existential conflict. We can not compromise on death and enslavement.
Its all or nothing, them or us.

historic opportunity

    Iran is run by Twelvers. They believe that, by
bringing about Armageddon, they can put a final end to the existence of
kuffar. Their objective is global conquest, they can not be deterred.

look into the heart
of darkness

      The genocidal actions of ISIS compel
open minded observers to examine the damnable doctrines of Islam which
motivate those actions.

not invested adequately

    The self-appointed dictator of the world is pushing
for international socialism. He wants to impoverish us to feather other

    The reference to international norms relates to the
use of chemical weapons in Syria. it could just as easily be applied to
the reluctance to respond to the genocide in Iraq in a timely manner.

sectarianism, and hopelessness

    Its the same old lie: “terrorism is caused by
hoplessness, ignorance, illness, poverty, repression, occupation”…
name your preferred grievance meme.

        Terrorism is caused by intrinsic
Islamic doctrines enshrined in the Qur’an and exemplified in hadith
& Sira.
3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67,
9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123,
59:2,13, 61:10-13;
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220

For further detail, see:

cancer of violent

    Islam is the cancer, radiation is one answer. There
is no extremism, there is only Islam: as defined and exemplified by

    Islam has not been hijacked, perverted nor
distorted. The Qur’an commands Muslims to engage in terrorism. It
promises a reward for terrorism.  Moe said that he was “made
victorious with terror”.  Get a clue.
3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67,
9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123,
59:2,13, 61:10-13;
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220

perverted one of the
world’s great religions

    Its the same old lie: Islam has not been perverted,
distorted or hijacked. It is evil by design, from its inception.
Terrorists act in obedience to Allah; emulating Moe. Get a clue. 

3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67,
9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123,
59:2,13, 61:10-13;
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220

For further detail, see:

   Islam is not a religion, it is a deen: all inclusive way
of life. Its religious component is Jihad, defined in Islamic law as
“war against non-Muslims”. 

    Because Islam is mercenary and martial, it is not
entitled to protection under the umbra of the first amendment’s free
exercise clause.

embraced a nightmarish

    Its Islam, Stupid!!! The damnable doctrines which
drive terrorism are intrinsic to Islam; enshrined in the Qur’an and
exemplified in hadith. Get a clue.
3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67,
9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123,
59:2,13, 61:10-13;
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220

For further detail, see:

associated forces

    Its Islam, stupid!!  By any other name, a skunk
stinks. Islam, Boko Haram, ISIL, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, HAMAS, Hizbollah &
PLO: Islam, damn it!!!  The whole ball of feces is based on the
Qur’an and hadith; dependent for its perpetuation on belief in Allah,
its threat & promise.

United States is not and
never will be at war with Islam.

    For too long we have elected a series of fools and
traitors. Otherwise, Congress would have declared, and we would be
waging war to eradicate islam from the face of the earth.  Islam
is and has always been at war against us. Islam is perpetual war
against everything not Islamic.

Islam teaches peace

    Islam’s version of peace is Dar Ul-Islam: the world
after it completes its conquest of Dar Ul-Harb.  While there is
Islam, there will be no peace.  Islamic scripture, tradition &
jurisprudence declare perpetual war. Get a clue. 

no us and them

    Muslims are not here to assimilate. They are here to
conquer. Moe emigratede to Yatthrib and took it over, making it into
Medina where he built his army in preparation for the conquest of

    We need to expel and exclude Muslims from the lands
of Western Civilization.

misguided refuge of

    What did the four “rightly guided caliphs” do? Islam
is permanent war.
3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67,
9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123,
59:2,13, 61:10-13;
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220.

trends that fuel
their recruitment

    Its Islam, Stupid!!! Without Islam there would be no
Islamic terrorism. Terrorism does not result from poverty, repression,
suppression, oppression, occupation, ignorance, illness, idleness or
any other real or imagined grievance, it flows from belief in Allah,
his imperatives, threat and promise. Go to war or go to Hell. Fight
them until…. Get extra credit for any step taken to injure or enrage
disbelievers. Its Islam, Stupid. Eradicate it!!!

sovereign Afghan

    Afghanistan and Iraq are populated and governed by
Muslims. Islamic law is the source of their legislation and their
constitutions prohibit any law contrary to Shari’ah.  We wasted
every drop of blood, arm, leg and life; every dollar we spent because
we did not eradicate Islam.

extremist ideology

    Only Allah has the right to be worshipped. Only
Allah has the right to rule and govern. Disbelievers must be converted
or killed. The blood flows from those ideas.

have no job

    Their job is making Allah’s word: Islam dominate the
earth. Its Jihad. Education, employment, health and wealth have nothing
to do with it. Terrorism flows from the damnable doctrines of Islam,
not from grievances or conditions.

sectarian conflicts

    The conflict between Shi’ia & Sunni is a matter
of power: who will rule and receive the plunder and Jizya. When they
kill each other, they are doing our work for us. Take bets, but stay
out of it. Islam; all Muslims are our enemies, neither friends,
partners nor allies.

ISIL degraded
and ultimately destroyed

    Did we win WWII by defeating Panzers &
Kamikazis?  We defeated Germany & Japan. 

    We invaded Afghanistan &
Iraq, setting up unstable, weak Islamic regimes. Did that end

    We killed Usama Bin Ladin and
several of his top associates, capturing others. Obamination told us
that Al-Qaeda was defeated, on the run. Did that end terroism? 
Islam is the enemy, the rest is persiflage. The war will not be over
until there are no believing
Muslims left alive on the earth.

conscience of the world.

    The world does not have a conscience, individuals
do. Terrorism is performed to instill terror: to weaken the will and
resolve to resist attack.  The Qur’an describes terror in terms of
children turning hoary headed, nursing mothers dropping their infants,
pregnant women aborting their loads,  knees buckling and hands
trembling.  Those descriptions refer to  Judgment Day, but
give us clues as to what is meant by 3.151, 8.12,
8.57, 8.60, 59.2 & 59.13. 

No God condones this

3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67,
9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123,
59:2,13, 61:10-13;
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220.

    Can you get a clue?  What did Allah say about
terror? “I will cast terror”,  “Allah cast terror” , “to strike
terror”,”to terrify thereby”. . Terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of

No grievance
justifies these actions

and killing monks & nuns is proscribed because of bad public
relations,      Islamic doctrines sanctify and
mandate them.  While deliberate killing of women and children is
proscribed because they are “property for Muslims”terrorism is an
intrinsic sacrament of Islam. So is genocide.

no negotiation

    What are you doing with Iran? Are you negotiating
over their nuclear arms program?  The Mullahs are Muslims,
motivated to obtain nukes by the damnable doctrines of Islam.

What are you demanding that
Israel do with HAMAS?  HAMAS is another sub set of Islam, they are
terrorists. Why in Hell should Israel negotiate with them or make any
concessions to them???

dismantle this
network of death

    Dismantle Islam. Cause the Ummah to cease believing
in Allah, its threat & promise or usher them into Hell. Who has the
political will to take either course of action?

campaign of airstrikes

    When ISIS forces were forming a nice neat line of
trucks several miles long, a single A10 with cannon blazing and an
Apache to pick off the survivors could have taken care of the problem,
preventing the fall of Mosul and saving thousands of lives. You played
golf and went fund raising while Iraq was burning. You did not strike
while the iron was hot.

against these terrorists on the ground

    We helped Mujahideen drive Russia out of
Afghanistan. What was the outcome?  Can you get a clue?

    Rebel forces against the Syrian
regime are Muslims. They are not our friends. They are not our allies.
They are our enemies. Can you learn from sad experience in Libya? 
Not with fecal matter where your brain should be.

reject the ideology of organizations like
al Qaeda and ISIL

    Reject Islam: 

  • Only Allah has the right to be worshipped.
  • Only  Allah has the right to rule and govern.
  • Disbelievers must be converted or killed.

3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67,
9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123,
59:2,13, 61:10-13;
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220.

alternative vision

    Give them an alternative to Islam:
Christianity.  Cause them to engage in doubt and introspection.
Show them evidence of the true character and works of Allah &
Moe.  Induce mass apostasy.

Do unto thy neighbor

    9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are
close to you
, and let them
find harshness in you,
and know that Allâh is with those who are
the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious – see V.2:2).

9:23. O you who believe! Take not for Auliyâ’
(supporters and helpers) your fathers and your brothers if they prefer
disbelief to Belief. And whoever of you does so, then he is one of the
Zâlimûn (wrong-doers, etc.).

9:73. O Prophet (Muhammad )! Strive hard against the disbelievers and
the hypocrites, and be harsh
against them, their abode is Hell,
– and worst indeed is that destination.

ideology of ISIL
or al Qaeda or Boko Haram

    Its Islam, Stupid!!! Only Allah has the right to be
worshipped. Only Allah has the right to govern. Disbelievers must be
converted or Killed.

exposed and confronted

    Shrub did not expose and confront Islam, he praised
it as a “great religion of peace”. Obamination will not expose and
confront Islam, continuing to repeat the tired string of lies in this
speech to the General Assembly.

We must declare war on war

    War is not an enemy, it is an evil action. 
Terrorism is not an enemy, it is a tactic used by the enemy. 
Declare and wage a war of extermination on Islam if you love life,
liberty and peace.

religion shouldn’t be a cause of hate, war,
or strife

    Islam is, by design, a cause of hate, war, genocide
and terrorism. Its founder got his income by the tip of his spear:
through plunder and extortion. Before each ghazwat, he prayed to “the
lord of the devils” for “the good of this town and all that is in it”,
meaning the women and children to be enslaved and their property to be
plundered. If in doubt, turn to The Life of Muhammad and 8.67 to obtain complete clarity.

counter extremist

    Counter Islam’s damnable doctrines of perpetual,
genocidal, terrorist war. There is no extremism, there is only Islam as
Moe preached and practiced it for Muslims to emulate at all times, in
all places.

intolerance out of schools

    Get the Qur’an & hadith out of madrassahs. Stop
the manifesting and propagation of Islam. Read the Qur’an and obtain a

3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than
Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will
be one of the losers.

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

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

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


    Radical, radicalization & extremist are false
memes. Islam is Islam. Participation in genocidal, terrorist Jihad is a
function of belief, nothing else.  The Qur’an has clues for you,
read it and curse Islam!
3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67,
9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123,
59:2,13, 61:10-13;
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220

fight that no one is

    When Sunni & Shi’ia kill each other, we win. The
path to peace leads thru the Islamic cemetery.

inclusive government

    Great idea! Lets put the Mafia in charge of the FBI
and stack DHS with Muslim Brotherhood members.  Afghanistan and
Iraq are lost causes and will continue as such while populated and
governed by Muslims.

our partners

are neither friends, partners nor allies of disbelievers; it is
explicitly forbidden. See, for example, 3.28 & 5.51. Get a clue.

Syrian opposition

    Muslims. Our enemies, not our allies. Obamination is
too stupid to learn the lesson of Libya.

broader negotiation
in the region

    First, he says
there is no negotiating with terrorists. next he calls for broader
negotiation in the region.  Which state in the region is not
dominated by Muslims??  Why should Israel negotiate with

great tradition

    Its Islam, Stupid!!! It stands for conquest;
genocidal imperialism.  Its traditions are in the hadith &
Sira. Read the Jihad book of any of the six canonical hadith

    The braying ass said that Islam stands for human
dignity.  That Goddamn lie is one of the easiest to dispatch. For
the factual evidence, turn to Sahih Bukhari.

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.
” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah
that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and
property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the
right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers,
prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and
has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”

Your blood and treasure are not sacred to Muslims: its open season! You
have no human rights until you become Muslim.  So much for

alternatives to terror.

    Exactly how would any other battle tactic be an
improvement?? Islam is a war crime: predation upon the human race.
Islam entails attack, plunder, rape and slavery. Those are intrinsic
sacraments, not subject to reformation.

    If you seek peace and security,
make Islam extinct.

rejecting extremism

    Are the foundational doctrines and practices
intrinsic to Islam extreme or are they normative?  What did Moe
say about terrorism? What did Allah say about it?  What did Moe
do?  He cast terror by assasinations and barbarian rapine. 
Islam must be rejected.

transformation of
hearts and minds

    Show them the true character and works of the demon
they worship and its profiteer. Cause those who retain a scintilla of
vestigial morality to apostatize and usher the recalcitrant remainder
into Hell.

best antidote to violence.

    Old Harry demonstrated it on Japan decades ago to
end WWII.

conflict between
Palestinians and Israelis

    The conflict is existential. Muslims can not
tolerate the existence of Jews and Israel. Islam was designed to rope
in Jews. Most of them recognized the fraud and laughed it to scorn.
That offended moe in the worst way. 

    Allah promised permanent
conquest in 13.41. By recovering a fragment of her ancient
patrimony conquered by Umar, Israel is the ultimate blasphemy: living
proof that Allah is an impotent idol. 

    Israel can only obtain secure peace by exterminating

two states living side
by side

    One state: Israel, with no living Muslims within
rocket range. There is no alternative.


    The racist demagogue can not resist dragging in a
domestic issue.  Brown was shot as a result of assaulting a police
officer.  The cop is not at fault.  Obamination is exploiting
the issue in hopes of starting a race war.

    Muslims do not attack us because of real or imagined
imperfections or actions, they attack us because we are not Muslims.
Look up the Barbary Wars and see what Sidi told Thomas Jefferson if you
doubt this.

fundamental that we all share

   We do not
share human values with Muslims. Muslims love death more than we love
life. To them, this world is but play and pass time, the real action is
in Allah’s celestial bordello described in Surah 78.31.

6:32. And the life of this world is nothing but
play and amusement. But far better is the house in the Hereafter for
those who are Al­Muttaqûn (the pious – see V.2:2). Will you not then

September 24, 2014 Posted by | Islam, Islam Distorted?, Islam Hijacked?, Islam Perverted?, Islam Twisted?, Islamic Radicalism?, Islamic Terrorism, Obama, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , | 5 Comments

Measures To Eliminate International Terrorism

Measures to eliminate international terrorism

A/RES/68/119, passed by the United Nations General
Assembly  December 16, 2013 without a vote.

After reaffirming a slew of prior resolutions and
condemnations of terrorism, the last paragraph on page 2 offers an
obtuse and opaque hint at the root of the problem, conflicting with
those previous resolutions.. [Emphasis added.]


Reaffirming also that terrorism
cannot and should not be associated with

religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group,


Reaffirming that terrorismcannot and
should not be associated with

religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group,
Emphasizing that tolerance and
dialogue among
civilizations and the

enhancement of interfaith and intercultural understanding are among the most

important elements in
promoting cooperation and success in combating terrorism,

and welcoming the various
initiatives to this end,


Terrorism can not be associated with Islam

That declaration is a prime example of Political
Correctness: “A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority,
and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds
forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by
the clean end.”[Wikiquote]

Turds do not have clean ends and terrorism
is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam.

    • religion
    • civilization
  • Dialogue among civilizations and understanding:
    • interfaith
    • intercultural
  • Most important elements in combating terrorism.

When we put the critical elements of the two
paragraphs together for comparison, cognitive dissonance is clearly
recognizable. If there is no causal relationship between religion and
terrorism, how can interfaith understanding combat terrorism?

terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam

Allah said that he would “cast terror“. Allah cast terror, plundering Jewish
settlements.  Allah told Moe that he terrified
the Jews more than Allah did.  Moe said that he was made victorious by terror.

Allah commanded Muslims to treat defeated victims
harshly to
those to be attacked next.  Allah commanded Muslims
to maximize their military strength to terrify prospective victims.

Terror in modern Islamic strategy

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

struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only

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

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

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

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

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

Allah hu Akbar!

That is what they say when they sacrifice hadi at
Eid. It is also what they said when they slit the throats of the flight
crews.  Yes, they sacrificed the flight crews to Satan, but there
is more, as Mohammed Atta commanded the hijackers in his final

‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear
the hearts of the non-believers. God said: ‘Strike above the neck, and
strike at all of their extremities.’ Know that the gardens of paradise
are waiting for you in all their beauty, and the women of paradise are
waiting, calling out, ‘Come hither, friend of God.’ They have dressed
in their most beautiful clothing.

He told them to shout the Takbir because it strikes fear. He cited 8.12
in which Allah promised to cast terror. He alluded to the whores of
Allah’s celestial bordello which are promised
to those who fight in his cause
, killing and being killed and the
upgrade available to those who take
any step to enrage or injure disbelievers
. .

terrorize you

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and his four co-conspirators
had a few things to say about terrorism in their Response To The Nine Accusations.

So, if our
act of Jihad
and our
fighting with you caused
and terror
, then many thanks

to God, because it is him that has thrown
fear into your hearts
which resulted in your infidelity,

paganism, and your statement
that God had a son and your trinity beliefs.

Why are those vermin still alive and eating on our dime?

So, our
religion is a religion of fear and terror
to the enemies of God: the Jews,
Christians, and pagans.

With God’s wiling, we
are terrorists to the bone
. So, many thanks to

The Arab poet, Abu-Ubaydah
AI-Hadrami, has stated: ((
will terrorize you, as long as we live

swords, fire, and airplanes.))

Why are those vermin not burning in Hell?

We ask to be near to God, we
fight you and destroy you and terrorize you
. The Jihad in god’s
cause is a

great duty
in our religion
. We
have news for you, the news is: You will be greatly defeated in

Afghanistan and Iraq and that
America will fall, politically, militarily, and economically. Your end
is very

near and your fall will be
just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day. We will raise
from the

ruins, God willing. We will
leave this imprisonment with our noses raised high in dignity, as the

emerges from his den. We
shall pass over the blades of the sword into the gates of heaven.

So we
ask from God to accept our contributions to the great attack
, the great attack on America, and

place our nineteen martyred
brethren among the highest peaks in paradise.

God is great and pride for
God, the prophet, and the believers

Why are Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan & Saudi Arabia still
polluting the face of the earth and infesting the world with vermin?

Why did Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton,
Shrub & Obama mislead the nation, lie to us about the identity and
character of the enemy and obfuscate the breadth, depth and intensity
of the existential threat it poses to Liberty?

Why does the United Nations commit treason against
the human race by obfuscating the source of genocidal, terrorist
Jihad?  If they sincerely wanted to combat international
terrorism, they would take measures to eradicate Islam from the face of
the earth. They would seek means of causing mass apostasy

among the Ummah al-Islamiyya.  Instead they seek to shield Islam
from exposure; to shield it  by criminalizing all questioning and
criticism of its damnable doctrines and practices.

This video illustrates the basics of Jihad, it is a
clue for you.

This longer video demonstrates the deceptions
of  Blair, Cameron, Obamination & Shrub.

While it conflates
hadith with Qur’an, it is conceptually accurate.

Citizens of the USA can use this on line petition to
inform their Congressmen and Senators of Islam’s egregious violations
of international human rights conventions and demand their enforcement
which requires that Islam be proscribed by law for promoting war and
genocide. When you sign it, it will email itself to Congress.

Europeans can not sign the petition, they should
email a link to their MP & MEP instead.

December 22, 2013 Posted by | Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Petitions, Political Correctness, Qur'an, Religion of Peace, Traitors, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Adopting Measures to Criminalize Criticism of Islam

Adopting Measures to Criminalize Criticism of Islam

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping,stigmatization,
discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons,
based on religion or belief continues by calling all states to take
actions based on remarks by OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu
addressed to the HRC before their vote on one of the previous
resolutions. Eight points were outlined in the speech, and included in
the current draft.

(f) Adopting
to criminalize
incitement to imminent violence based
on religion or belief;

adopting measures to criminalize

    The draft resolution echoes Ishanoglu’s demand that
UN member states enact and enforce laws making negative comments about
Islam a criminal offense. When used by the UN, “incitement to imminent
violence” does not refer to the rabble rousing rants that incite riots,
it refers to every exposure of the damnable doctrines and practices of

    Ban Ki moon’s condemnation of Fitna  is

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

The Secretary General of the UN  labeled Fitna
“hate speech” and “incitement”.  In reality, the video exposes
Islamic hate and incitement. Hatred and incitement flow from the
Qur’an, hadith, Shari’ah and the tongues of rabble rousing Imams, not
from the video produced by Geert Wilders.

  • 2:191 And
    slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they
    have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than
    slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first)
    fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward
    of those who suppress faith. [Abdullah Yusuf Ali]

  • 3:139-141 So
    do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be
    superior (in victory) if you are indeed (true) believers. If a
    wound hath touched you, be sure a similar wound hath touched the
    others. Such days (of varying fortunes) We give to men and men by
    turns: that God may know those that believe, and that He may take to
    Himself from your ranks Martyr-witnesses (to Truth). And God loveth not
    those that do wrong.  And that Allah may test (or purify) the
    believers (from sins) and destroy the disbelievers. [Hilali &Khan]

  • 4:91 Ye
    will find others who seek to gain your confidence as well as that of
    their own people: So oft as they return to sedition, they shall be
    overthrown in it: But if they leave you not, nor propose terms or peace
    to you nor withhold their hands, then seize them, and slay them,
    wherever ye find them. Over these have we given you undoubted
  • 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.[Hilali & Khan]

  • 9:29 
    Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as
    believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which
    God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession
    of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be

  • 47:4 When
    ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a
    great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters. And
    afterwards let there either be free dismissals or ransomings, till the
    war hath laid down its burdens. Thus do. Were such the pleasure of God,
    he could himself take vengeance upon them: but He would rather prove
    the one of you by the other. And whoso fight for the cause of God,
    their works he will not suffer to miscarry;[Rodwell]

us-Salaheen, Book 11, Ch. 234 cites  many ahadith in proving the obligation
of Jihad
It does not mention the above cited ayat, but does cite several others.
 Reliance of the Traveler specifically offers 9:29 as
justification for declaring war on Jews and Christians.

Reliance of the Traveller. BOOK O: JUSTICE >> Chapter
O-9.0: Jihad

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,

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 use of fitna in 8:39 as casus belli. It is also mentioned in 5:33 Muslims love to cite 5:32,
but never quote its successor to Kuffar. Why is that?

Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone
killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread
mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if
anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all
mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear
proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them
continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and
exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins)
in the land!
5:33 The
recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do
mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or
their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be
exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great
torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

Kathir’s tafsir of  5:33
 has a blood curdling
implication. Note the emphasized phrases.

‘ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief,
blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land
refers to various types of evil.

disbelief in Allah is sufficient to subject you to the hudud listed in
the ayeh above cited! Now you rightly understand that Geert Wilders is
not exaggerating in his video presentation.

Without exception, the hate speech and incitement displayed in Fitna flow from Islam’s canonical
texts and the mouths of rabble rousing Imams, not from Geert
Wilders.  The Secretary General does not condemn Allah, his Book,
his Messenger or his rabble rousing preachers, he condemns the video
which exposes them.

neither hate speech nor incitement, it is objective and factual; an
exposure of the damnable doctrines of Islam and accursed practices
which flow from belief in  them.  The draft resolution is an
attempt to erect a legal shield to protect the world’s worst evil from

November 15, 2013 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , | 2 Comments

Parallel Tracks to Censorship

This table is intended to show the similarities between the current draft resolutions on Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, combating defamation of religions and the 2009 draft protocol to ICERD.

These documents equate racism & opposition to Islam, conflate the right of free expression with an imaginary right to be shielded from criticism and subordinate it to that fiction. The resolutions are not enforcible; they only lend immoral support to local blasphemy laws which are used to persecute minorities. The protocol, if passed, signed and ratified, will have the force of law as part of ICERD.

These are three parallel tracks condemning criticism of Islam; one of them will criminalize it.  The United Nations, driven by the OIC, are trying to make criticism of Islam a criminal offense.  In essence, anything that offends Muslims will become illegal. Reliance of the Traveller, Book o, Chapter 8.7 lists twenty forbidden acts and attitudes which entail apostasy subjecting the perpetrator to the death penalty. Jews & Christians living as dhimmis under Islamic domination are subject to the same provision, by reference in o11.10 -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.)

Muslims demand that those laws be enforced so that revealing the fact that terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam or that Muhammad was a pedophile, plunderer and terrorist will be a criminal offense punishable by fine and imprisonment.

The United States officially rejects the concept of defamation of religions, yet it is a sponsor of A/C.3/65/L.32, which substitutes negative stereotyping with essentially the same denotation.  Note the “deep concern” expressed about negative stereotyping & association with terrorism.

concept A/C.3/65/L.32 A/C.3/65/L.46 Draft Protocol
Conflation Also emphasizes that freedom of religion or belief and freedom of
expression are interdependent, interrelated and mutually reinforcing, and stresses
further the role these rights can play in the fight against all forms of intolerance and
of discrimination based on religion or belief;
Reaffirming that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and
In this connection, both special report urged the Committee on Human Rights to consider adopting additional rules on the interrelations between freedom of expression, freedom of religion and non-discrimination, particularly in the form ‘a general comment on Article 20.
incitement Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audiovisual
or electronic media or any other means;
Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the legislation necessary to
prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement
to discrimination, hostility or violence, and encourages States, in their follow-up to
the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and
Related Intolerance, to include aspects relating to national or ethnic, religious and
linguistic minorities in their national plans of action and in this context to take
forms of multiple discrimination against minorities fully into account;
The fundamental characteristic common to all events to discredit certain religions and insult people or groups who have religion in common, commonly called “defamation of religions” and that all phobias and religious discrimination is incitement to racial hatred For religious and address the issue of defamation of religions in a universal manner, it is essential to reduce this discussion to the international instruments on human rights. In particular, provisions relating to incitement to national hatred, racial or religious are already part of the main international instruments of which the vast majority of countries are signatories. This anchoring of defamation of religions in specific legal provisions is likely to confirm that no incitement to racial hatred and religious standard is already integrated in the vast majority of national laws in all regions.
terrorism Also emphasizes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this
may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion
or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned;
Expresses deep concern, in this respect, that Islam is frequently and
wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;
symbols To exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation
and in conformity with international human rights law, to ensure that religious
places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and protected in a
non-discriminatory way, and to take additional measures in cases where they are
vulnerable to desecration and destruction and to bring to justice individuals
responsible for committing acts of desecration or destruction;
Calls upon all States to exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their
national legislation and in conformity with international human rights and
humanitarian law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols and
venerated personalities are fully respected and protected, and to take additional
measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction;
respect To take all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with
international standards of human rights, to combat hatred, discrimination,
intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance
based on religion or belief, as well as incitement to hostility and violence, with
particular regard to members of religious minorities in all parts of the world, and to
reflect on such incidents with a view to formulating effective measures to promote
respect for freedom of religion or belief;
Also urges all States to take all possible measures to promote tolerance
and respect for all religions and beliefs and the understanding of their value systems
and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat
religious hatred and intolerance;
Expressing deep concern at all forms of discrimination and intolerance,
including prejudices against persons and derogatory stereotyping of persons, based
on religion or belief,
Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and
manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still
evident in the world;
Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity
leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and
incitement to religious hatred and violence,
The participants sought to identify gaps and weaknesses regarding additional issues include: the multiple or aggravated forms of racial discrimination, ethnic cleansing, genocide, religious intolerance and defamation of religious symbols, racial discrimination in the private domain, incitement to racial hatred and dissemination of hate speech and xenophobic and stereotypical images in the media and information technologies, including the Internet. “[14]
Political Parties Expressing serious concern at the increase in racist violence and xenophobic
ideas in many parts of the world, in political circles, in the sphere of public opinion
and in society at large, as a result, inter alia, of the resurgence of activities of
political parties and associations established on the basis of racist, xenophobic and
ideological superiority platforms and charters, and the persistent use of those
platforms and charters to promote or incite racist ideologies,
Noting that in some countries, intolerance towards followers of certain religions is encouraged, openly or implicitly, by some parties and political leaders, including not only extremist parties, but also some traditional parties ,

November 8, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness, United Nations | , | 2 Comments

Elimination of Religious Discrimination

Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief

A/C.3/65/L.32 is a draft resolution assigned to the Third Committee of the General Assembly. Dated October 28 ’10, it takes the form of a six page pdf file. Like most UN resolutions, it begins with boilerplate references to previous resolutions & reports.

On the second page, they get down to details, where I find the first clash with reality.

Considering that religion or belief, for those who profess either, is one of the fundamental elements in their conception of life and that freedom of religion or belief should be fully respected and guaranteed,

That would be fine if all systems of belief were anodyne. But one of them is not; it commands its votaries to engage in genocidal conquest until the entire world is subjugated to its will. How can there be a right to sustain and propagate a belief that one has a divine mandate to terrorize and conquer everyone who does not share your exact system of belief and ritual practice?

Reaffirming that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, which includes the freedom to have or not to have, or to adopt a religion or belief of one’s own choice, or to change one’s religion or belief, and the freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest one’s religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance,

The elements of choice, abstention & change all conflict directly with Shari’ah. Allah said, in 3:85, that only Islam will be accepted. Shari’ah requires that apostates be executed.

Expressing deep concern at all forms of discrimination and intolerance, including prejudices against persons and derogatory stereotyping of persons, based on religion or belief,

Exactly what are they concerned about?  The expression is ambiguous, I presume that the ambiguity is deliberate. We can safely assume that it is a reference to linkage between Islamic terrorism and Muslims; a hint at “profiling”.

Convinced of the need to address the rise in various parts of the world of religious extremism that affects the rights of individuals, the situations of violence
and discrimination that affect many women and other individuals on the grounds or in the name of religion or belief or in accordance with cultural and traditional practices, and the misuse of religion or belief for ends inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations and other relevant instruments of the United Nations,.

What is “religious extremism” and how does it affect the rights of individuals? Is it a reference to the Taliban beating women who do not wear the hijab?  Is it a reference to Muslims burning churches and murdering Christians in Indonesia and Egypt?   What religion is “misused” and by whom?

They love ambiguity. This gem is found on the third page, headlining an enumerated list.

Underlining the importance of education in the promotion of tolerance, which involves the acceptance by the public of, and its respect for, diversity, including with regard to religious expression, and underlining also the fact that education, in religion or belief, as well as violations of freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief; particular at school, should contribute in a meaningful way to promoting tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief,

If that is not a demand that schools be used to indoctrinate students with false hagiography about Islam, for the sake of fostering “tolerance”  then what is it?

Stresses that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief applies equally to all persons, regardless of their religions or beliefs, and without any discrimination as to their equal protection by the law;

That includes belief in the supremacy of Islam, and the divine mandate to enforce it upon the entire world through terrorism. No thanks! I can’t tolerate that!

Emphasizes that, as underlined by the Human Rights Committee, restrictions on the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief are permitted only if limitations are prescribed by law, are necessary to protect public  safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, are non-discriminatory  and are applied in a manner that does not vitiate the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief;

How would that be applied to Reliance of the Traveller, o11.5?

Also emphasizes that freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression are interdependent, interrelated and mutually reinforcing, and stresses further the role these rights can play in the fight against all forms of intolerance and  of discrimination based on religion or belief;

That is a convoluted way of asserting that my right to truthfully reveal the damnable details of Islamic doctrine & practice is subordinated to the Muslim’s right to believe that he has a divine mandate to kill me, rape my widow and sell my orphans into slavery.  Neither that belief nor its implementation can be tolerated. Both conquest and the implied restriction on free expression violate my fundamental freedoms.

Recognizes with deep concern the overall rise in instances of intolerance  and violence, including by non-State actors, directed against members of many religious and other communities in various parts of the world, including cases  motivated by Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia;

That is an obvious attempt to paint an image of balance, when it is clear that the real concern is only about intolerance of Islam. They do not give a damn about the Christians being repressed, beaten, burned out and murdered in Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, Indonesia & Pakistan.

Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audiovisual or electronic media or any other means;

In a pig’s eye!  They do not condemn the Quran’ic verses which command Muslims to wage war on polytheists,  Jews & Christians: 8:39 & 9:29,  The Islamic states would never tolerate that well deserved condemnation!  Instead, they condemn the Motoons which exaggerated Moe’s status as a terrorist and Fitna, which exposes Islamic incitement of violence.

Expresses concern over the persistence of institutionalized social intolerance and discrimination practised against many on the grounds of religion or belief, and emphasizes that legal procedures pertaining to religious or belief-based groups and places of worship are not a prerequisite for the exercise of the right to manifest one’s religion or belief, and that such procedures, when legally required at the national or local level, should be non-discriminatory in order to contribute to the effective protection of the right of all persons to practise their religion or belief, either individually or in community with others and in public or private;

When Muslims celebrate Eid by slitting the throat of a goat they shout “Allahu Akhbar!”; they are practicing their religion. When Moe invaded the Khaibar Oasis, shouting “Allahu Akhbar!, he was practicing his religion. [Sahih Bukhari 4.52.195]  When terrorists slit the throats of Flight 93’s crew, shouting “Allahu Akhbar!, they were practicing their religion.   Sacrificing a goat is one thing, we can tolerate that; sacrificing humans is another, intolerable practice which must be condemned and proscribed.

Allah tells us that he purchased the Muslims so that they fight in his cause, killing and  being killed. [9:111].  Allah also tells us that Islam is inseverable, it must be accepted as a package deal, all or nothing. [13:36]  By what sleight of hand can the practice & propagation of Islam be considered tolerable?

Emphasizes that States have an obligation to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish acts of violence against persons belonging to religious minorities, regardless of the perpetrator, and that failure to do so may  constitute a human rights violation;

Who will go to Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan & Sudan to enforce those violated human rights?

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

This tenth item on page  three of the draft is the most egregious offense to truth, logic and common sense.  They flatly declare that Islam must not be equated with terrorism when terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam.  How in Hell can there be a right to engage in terrorism??? Examine the clear evidence open upon the face of authentic Islamic texts. [Emphasis added for clarity.]

  • 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).
  • 8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.”
  • 8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.
  • 8:60.  Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
  • 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.
  • 59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh’s (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).
  • 59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh – Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh).
  • Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
    Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
    The Prophet said, “I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
    1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.
    2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
    3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
    4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
    5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.

    • Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
      Narrated Abu Huraira:Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them)

Allah said that he would cast terror, then he said that he cast terror, resulting in the death of male defenders and the enslavement of their women and children. Moe said that he was made victorious by terror.  It is clear for all to see: terrorism is a foundational sacrament of Islam; yet the UN denies the well documented connection.

The eleventh item in the enumerated list contains a lettered list; item h & i are  egregiously outrageous.

To exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights  law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and protected in a non-discriminatory way, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration and destruction and to bring to justice individuals responsible for committing acts of desecration or destruction;

One word in that list is sufficiently broad to encompass all criticism of Islam: “symbols”.  The clause clause including it will be used to criminalize any and all negative mention of Allah, the Qur’an, hadith, Shari’ah and Moe.

(i) To ensure that, in accordance with appropriate national legislation and in conformity with international human rights law, the freedom of all persons and members of groups to establish and maintain religious, charitable or humanitarian institutions is fully respected and protected;

One phrase in that list is sufficiently broad to erase laws prohibiting financial aid to terrorists: “charitable or humanitarian institutions”. This returns to President Obama’s promise to facilitate payment zakat.  It ignores the fact that Islamic law requires that one eighth of zakat must be paid to those “fighting in Allah’s cause“.

November 5, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

How to Find UN Documents

This blog post results from the discovery of the following search through  A/64/439/Add.2 (Part II), proj. de rés. XV someone at  the Canada Council for the Arts inquired about a United Nations document.  The  link to the Crusaders Armory blogspot was near the bottom of the first page of results. It is safe to assume that the searcher went through several other results before visiting my blog.

Many, if not most UN documents contain references to other UN documents.  Tracking down those references can be extremely difficult unless you have the right search engine.  Most of the search engine results will be to documents which reference the one you seek, few if any of them will provide a link to the desired document.

United Nations Publications has several interesting categories to check and a search window at the top of the page. That search produced irrelevant results.  It did, however, display a link to  another General Assembly  Document Search. which produced a report declaring that there is no matching document.
Image of the General Assembly Document Search

By removing the suffix from the search term, I got this result, a 151 page pdf. file; a report on the Third Committee’s Human Rights Protection & Promotion efforts.

If  you can not find  the document you need with that search engine,  and it is  directly related to human rights, there is another search engine you can tap. It is not my first choice because its output is in the form of a multi page table of descriptions and links. If you have the document symbol, try using it first to narrow the search results.
Human Rights Document Search Engine image

I recently discovered this resource: United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library which offers  a wide variety of search categories but requires omission of all punctuation from the search phrase. I was not able to find the Third Cmte. report there.  By back checking the link to the main library, I discovered a new resource: UN Pulse, which  alerts users to newly released documents. This may prove to be an extremely valuable resource for those who are interested in specific issues before UN bodies.

Someone jumped the gun with the link to UN Pulse. The page is blank;  there is nothing within the body tags. I will check it periodically and  issue a new post about it after it goes live.

March 2, 2010 Posted by | United Nations | , , , | 1 Comment

Irish Law Copied by OIC Defamation Proposal

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

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

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

Friday, 23-10-2009 PM

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

c) Discrimination based on religion or belief.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

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

O11.5 … -6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

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

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

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

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

Obamination: Treachery at the UN; False Promises and Narcissism

My quest for a transcript of President Obama’s remarks to the General Assembly led me to the New York Times.  The transcript was divided into seven pages. When I finished the preliminary round of highlighting, my working file was 34kb.

In order to keep my reaction to Obama’s UN treachery readable, I will divide it into several posts. This first post in the series will concentrate on the issue of President Obama’s narcissism. [Emphasis added.]

I come before you humbled by the responsibility that the American people have placed upon me

Yeah, right. He holds the office of President on his own initiative, having spent hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to deceive enough people long enough to win election. We shall see just how humble Barack Hussein Obama is, through his own words.

I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted, I believe, in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in hope — the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.

As ignorant, simple minded, gullible Americans expected that President Obama would wave a magic wand to solve all their problems once and for all, the greedy & gullible idiots of the world expect Uncle Sam, in the person of President Obama, to come bearing a magic toy bag, always full for their pleasure.  In promising to make them healthy, wealthy & educated by grossly expanding our national debt, President Obama lifts the world’s tail aside, displaces the flies and plants his lips for a wet kiss.

Is President Obama running for a new post: Global Dictator ? Why else would he continue with his “hope and change” mantra which mesmerized so many American voters?  Of course, as Sean Hannity pointed out in his radio broadcast Tuesday, “its all about I and me”.  There are 36 occurrences of “I”  in the speech. [Repetitions omitted from lists.]

  • I
    • come
    • have been in office
    • am aware
    • believe
    • took office
    • will never
    • have carried this message
    • will speak about
    • ask
    • prohibited
    • ordered
    • appointed
    • I have said
    • will repeat
    • am committed
    • will continue
    • had
    • will not waver
    • thank
    • know
    • will never forget
    • would not
    • pledge
    • admit

There are 13 occurrences of “my”.

  • my
    • country
    • belief
    • Secretary of State
    • Presidency
    • first day
    • nation
    • people
    • responsibility
    • honor

September 24, 2009 Posted by | Treason, United Nations | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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.


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

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.

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.


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.


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.

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

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
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

%d bloggers like this: