Free Speech vs Shielding Islam from Critics

Free Speech vs Shielding Islam from Critics The controversy over attempts to squelch "defamation of religions" is heating up. Individuals and organizations are speaking out. One of my Google Alerts  brought my attention to UN to consider anti-blasphemy laws proposed by the Organization of Islamic Conference, would make criticism of Islam illegal in America    at Saynsumthn’s Blog.

    The lead article, a press release from CFI,  is followed by a year old video clip of Christopher Hitchens and Lou Dobbs discussing the recent resolutions.  After that, we get down to business: a panel discussion on  the conflict between free speech and religious sensitivities.  The subject at hand is Islamic demands for legislation to shield their deen from criticism.  International PEN sponsored the event.

    Several participants are not native speakers of English and some of the concepts under discussion are not easy to express, so much of the discussion is difficult to listen to.  Half of one exchange  has been covered by several blogs including Front Page Magazine. Pakistan's Ambassador let fly with some heated remarks and hauled tail when a Canadian human rights advocate responded forcefully.  In my view, the Ambassador's rant deserves more scrutiny, which it will receive presently. [Superscripts in the text are linked to my comments. Use your back button to return to the text.]

    This video is huge. With a download speed of 52K,  it took a while to buffer and drained a great deal of memory. I foolishly clicked a link before rewinding to the interesting  part, and wound up repeating the process.

From the PEN American Center, United Nations Side-session Panel Discussion with Dr. Agnes Callamard, director, ARTICLE 19 (UK), Professor Tariq Ramadan (Switzerland), Mr. Budhy M. Rahman, program officer, The Asia Foundation (Indonesia); Moderated by Mr. John Ralston Saul, writer, president of International PEN (Canada).

 

International PEN and its national centers are extremely concerned about ongoing processes in the United Nations aimed at combating defamation of religions. We are also concerned about an initiative by the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, established in 2007 by the Islamic Conference (OIC) and a group of African countries, to draft a treaty that would ban religious defamation. Human Rights protect individual human beings, not institutions or religions. Criticism of religions and religious practices must be allowed, in particular when religions are viewed from a political point of view. As organizations representing writers, artists, and journalists of all faiths and none, we warn against any regulations prohibiting criticism of any religion or any set of ideas.

Against this background we have asked a group of high profile scholars, writers, and human rights defenders to join us for a side event in Geneva on the afternoon of September 16 in Room XXI of the UN Building.

    Each year for the last decade, the UN and its human rights  commission/council have debated and passed resolutions combating defamation of Islam/religions.  Those resolutions give immoral support to local blasphemy laws, which  facilitate oppression & persecution of minorities  under Islamic  regimes.  The OIC wants them to be given the force of law so that critics of Islam can be prosecuted in the West.  International PEN mentioned the Ad Hoc Cmte. which is working on a binding protocol to ICERD.  Not much is known about the cmte.'s work and most people are unaware of it. My series of blog posts on the subject, including quotes from and links to the available  documents, have been compiled into pdf files which you can download for study at leisure.

• Ad Hoc Cmte On Complementary Stds 125KB pdf compiled from several blog posts.
• Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document 120KB pdf  containing Google's Translation of the French language draft plus links to references and blog posts.

[1:05:08]
Ambassador Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the UN, Geneva  says he needs more  than one minute.. two?  wanna limit my freedom of expression?  Plenty of opportunity to talk in this building.  But not before this meeting, which needs to hear from me because I speak not only for Pakistan but for the Islamic countries here.  The President doubts it. Gets three minutes; declares himself "coordinator of the OIC".  ,...

 I think what you have started here is an unnecessary debate because we in the Islamic world do not look at this as a debate between freedom of expression and freedom of religion.¹  We are not opposed to freedom of expression, what we are opposed to is the abuse of this freedom to insult a entire religious faith and belief system  as well as the followers of the faith.²  Let me say that we--what we are seeking is equal treatment for Muslims especially in  the West. And we believe that we are being denied this equal treatment because of double standards which Mr. Ramadan has also spoken about and we believe that this attitude on the part of the West is a example of sanctimonious arrogance. ³ 

    Laws in the West do protect religious beliefs and there are countries that have blasphemy laws in the West itself. I can give you the names of the countries that do have them: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland and I can tell you each and every article in their constitutions which gives them these laws on blasphemy.  The problem sir is also very apparent in the way that the West treats Muslims and the views and beliefs of Muslims and the way it treats for instance, antisemitism.  There are laws in Western countries that will put a person in jail for antisemitic statements or denying the Holocaust.⁴  

    That is a treatment that is not extended to Muslims in this part of the world.⁵  The facts speak  for themselves. We have before us the cartoon issue.⁶ We have before us the minaret--the ban on minarets in Switzerland.  The posters in this ban campaign showed minarets designed as missiles.⁷ The linkage to showing that Muslims are in a way people who resort to violence and are dangerous persons.⁸  There is this film by Geert Wilders called Fitna which equates our holy book the Qur'an with Hitler's Mein Kampf. Not a single verse from the Qur'an has been quoted to demonstrate that Muslims or our Qur'an or our belief promotes violence by Mr. Wilders.⁹  

    The ban on the burqa¹⁰, the ban on the mosque in Manhattan¹¹, and this 'burn a Qur'an day¹²'-- they are all manifestations of the same thing that is going on--that is taking place in the West¹³. Mr. Obama has taken a position against the burning of the Qur'an.¹⁴ And what has he been labeled as?¹⁵  A Muslim and he  himself is denying that he is a Muslim as if being a Muslim is a crime¹⁶. What if he is a Muslim?¹⁷  That is somehow--we feel that it is extremely offensive¹⁸.  

    There is racial profiling against Muslims¹⁹. Even if you are the most respectable person you are separated and you are put into a different pew when you are at an airport.  Everyone of your bags is opened; you are stripped down to your --your clothes are stripped off your body; these are the realities of treatment that is being extended to Muslims in the West today²⁰.

     So it is not about the defamation of Islam, sir, it is about the victimization of Muslims that has to be addressed and that is what we are seeking here.²¹ 

    We are being linked to terrorism whereas terrorism has no religion²²; there are examples of terrorists in every religious denomination.  The IRA were not Muslims, they were Catholics.  So -- and there are several other examples of terrorism that are [unintelligible] . Instead of promoting your view and other Western views; instead of promoting a dialog between Islam and other religious denominations os actually serving the cause of those who want to use religion and want to use this disinformation against Islam²³ to promote greater victimization of Muslims.  There is a failure and actually a refusal to try and understand what we are trying to say. [1:11:01 Interrupted by Raheel Raza]

 

 "Thank you very much. I am a Canadian of Pakistani heritage and I would like to totally rebut what the honorable Ambassador here has said. I have lived in the West for over 25 years, I don't know where he's been living, but I think Muslims have more freedom in the West than they ever have in many Muslim lands. When you talk about inter-faith dialog there is absolutely no intra-faith dialog going on between the Muslim communities and dialog is a two way street.  Mr. Ambassador, sir, I'm responding to what you said, so it is rude of you to get up and leave. However, I will say this for the rest of the audience here, that this is  absolutely unacceptable; I mean freedom of speech is the most important human right we have and I totally support freedom of expression even if it is against my faith.  When he speaks of  Geert Wilders, Geert Wilders has the absolute freedom to say what he wants; it doesn't affect me personally, and neither does it harm my faith.  The Western world, the Canadian Prime Minister and the American President were the first ones to condemn the burning of the Qur'an by the American Pastor Terry Jones. I would never have the freedom to stand up and speak as I do here in my own country of birth.  So certainly, when we are talking about equal treatment of Muslims in the West.  And also I would like to comment about Professor Ramadan spoke at length about western values--the western world; this is not a debate between  Muslims and the West and unfortunately that is what it comes down to that is being divisible  we are speaking here about human rights that extend to all faiths. And lets get over this victim ideology that we are Muslims and we are being persecuted and lets talk about the freedom of everyone in the room here today and lets get to the point of freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.

1:13:22 Professor Ramadan answers some proceeding questions.  I am not able to transcribe his remarks, his mind and mouth are not in synch.\ and I can't type fast enough.  It is an important statement, which needs to be considered carefully and deliberately. Watch the gestures and expressions as you listen to his answer. He has  a recent op ed piece that may help to clarify matters.

---

 

1. The debate is crucial because the OIC is demanding international and national legislation to criminalize all questioning & criticism of Islam. Islamic law expressly forbids all negative expression about Islam, its deity, Profit & scripture. Violation is punishable by execution. In essence, they want that law extended to and imposed upon us.  The journalists seek to preserve the right of free expression, which is essential to the maintenance of cemocracy & liberty. Liberty can not be preserved if we can not issue warnings of threats to it. If we can't reveal the truth about Islam, we can't issue those warnings. 
   1. Acts entailing apostasy.
   2. Penalty.: scroll up to 613. 
      1. Application  to Non-Muslims: 
         1. o11.10 -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.
         2. o11.11 When a subject's agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14). 
         3. o9.14 When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: 025) considers the interests (0: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
   3. Defamation of Religions UNHRC March 25 ’10  03/26/10  Details of the resolution and graph of the vote trend showing declining support.
   4. 4U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext & Context  09/08/08  This post contains vital information about the documents which serve as a basis for the treacherous resolutions passed by the General Assembly & Human Rights Council. It also has a link to the prime source of UN resolutions. 
   5.  Ad Hoc Committee: New Resolutions  03/20/10  Competing Nigerian & American drafts in  pursuit of a binding protocol to ICERD for the purpose of outlawing these blog posts.
   6. Letter from OIC to Ad Hoc Committee 11/13/09  This is about the drive to criminalize criticism of Islam.
   7. Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper  08/04/09  The cmte. President's outline of the program of censorship.
   8. AdHoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission  08/03/09  Detailed analysis of the OIC's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
2. Their scripture says that Jews "earned Allah's wrath" and "Christians went astray". It says that Allah, men and angels curse us. It describes us as the worst of living creatures. But we must not be allowed to reveal how their Profit married a six year old girl, murdered critics and was a terrorist. 
3. Is there a better example of hypocrisy? 
4. The U.S.A. does not have a blasphemy law, neither does it outlaw Holocaust denial.  We allow open debate.
5. Criminalization of Holocaust denial is not a service to a religion, it is an exaggerated and mis-applied fear of a Nazi revival.  Holocaust denial is not analogous to factual & rational criticism of Islam.  
6. The Motoons, like most good comedy, include an element of exaggeration. They reflect the fact that Muhammad was, by his own admission, a terrorist. Here is what he said:: " I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)," and  "Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. " The quotes come from Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 & 1.7.331.
7. See the image and relevant quote at Andrew Bostom's  site. Erdogan said that the "Minarets are our swords".  
8. To the extent that Muslims are believers; to the extent that they implement Allah's imperatives they are dangerous and violent.  
9. Fitna involves several verses from the Qur'an which are documented here: Fitna: Supporting Documentation 03/27/08.  Those verses prove  clearly and beyond doubt  that Islam is intrinsically violent and aggressive, by design.
10. The burqa ban combines a tangential swipe of the cat's paw with a valid security interest. Anonymity can lead to impunity.
11. There are valid reasons for objecting to the mosque of triumph at ground zero. Even Tariq Ramadan agrees that the Park 51 project is an unnecessary provocation and insult to the surviving victims of the attack.  If built, it will serve as a psychological boost to the proponents of terrorism.
12. Besides being a tangetial attack on Islam, burn a Qur'an day served to raise public awareness of the content of that vile volume of lies & threats.  The books that were torn and burned were translations, not sacred books.  Only the Arabic text is considered sacred and authentic.
13. Growing  public awareness of the threats posed by Islam, both militant, demographic and political, is bringing about increasing resistance & objection to the spread of the war cult. 
14. President Obama condemned burn a Qur'an day.  He has not condemned Bible burning with equal intensity.  Neither has he vociferously condemned burning Christians and churches. His bias is evident.
15. President Obama was identified as a Muslim long before his condemnation of bun a Qur'an day. His Muslim father makes him Muslim by default. His expressed admiration for the Adhan is another marker.  His enrollment in primary schools as a Muslim  documents  the obvious.  His conmversion to  Christianity is an obvious political convenience.  His expressed "duty"  to protect Muslims from  negative stereotyping  stands outas clear evidence; it is not in his job description!
16. Is membership in the Mafia a crime?  Should membership in an  organized crime syndiicate be a crime? Moe began his criminal career with raids on camel caravans returning from trade missions.  He graduated to invading local Jewish settlements, then to invading nearby kingoms.  He sent extortion letters to his intended victims.  He said that the "keys to the treasures of the world" had been given to him. He told his companions: By Allah, I am not afraid that you will be poor, but I fear that worldly wealth will be bestowed upon you as it was bestowed upon those who lived before you. So you will compete amongst yourselves for it, as they competed for it and it will destroy you as it did them." He said" The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us, This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.".
17. A Muslim President, when America is under attack and threat of attack by Islam, is an exemplar of treason, the equivalent of a Nazi President in WW2.
18. Clarify that; the pronoun refers to:
    
    1. the 'Muslim' lable
    2. the denial
    3. the implication that Islam is criminal
       1. does the implication belong to President Obama ?
19. Who hijacked those aircraft? Was it elderly Baptist widows? Who tried to blow up Times Square? Was it a middle aged Catholic?  Whp are the perpetrators of Islamic acts of terrorism?  When we hear hoofbeats, we look for horses, not unicorns.
20. Subjecting all passengers to intrusive searches is  time & money wasting idiocy.  The simple solution: exclude Muslims from  mass transit.
21. What is in the titles of the UN resolutions? "Combating defamation of Islam"..."combating defamation of religions". If the issue is 'victimization, why is that not reflected in the titles? 
22. Examine what Allah said:
    
    1. "We shall cast terror "
    2. "I will cast terror "
    3. "to strike terror"
    4. "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."
    5. "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."
       1. Examine what Muhammad said: "I have been made victorious with terror"
       2. Examine what Brig. S.K. Malik wrote in "The Qur'anic Concept of War", a training manual for the Army of Pakistan. "Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponens 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."
23. Does anyone perceive the cognitive dissonance in this sentence?  Inter-religious dialog is a weapon against Islam?
    
    1. use religion
    2. use disinformation against Islam
       1. to victimize Muslims

Sphere: Related Content

Bashing Islam: Hypocrisy or Free Expression ?

Two Circles published a screed titled Hypocrisy in the guise of freedom of expression which accuses "the West" of hypocrisy.
After making it clear that the Facebook group "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" is on their mind, they launch their argument.

The Western society has always claimed to be protector of Freedom of Speech. But is it Islam bashing in the garb of Freedom of Speech? Does the West really practice what it preaches? Before Freedom of Speech, the West used to lecture all Asian/ African countries about human rights. But when its own hypocrisy about human rights was exposed in Iraq and Guantanamo and in cases of illegal detentions, West’s human rights chants have reduced drastically.

In my country, free speech is one of our foundational rights, assured by the First Amendment to our Constitution. That right is essential to the establishment & maintenance of a free republican form of government. It is necessary that the citizens be free to name and shame both domestic and foreign threats to their liberties. We must have freedom of expression to alert others to approaching danger: any attempt to encroach on our liberties or the system which establishes & preserves them.

Much to the dismay of M. Zajam & other Muslims, the right of free speech includes Islam bashing, which is a coarse and imprecise way of raising the alarm of approaching danger. Personally, I prefer more refined and precise techniques, which involve exposing the dirty details of Islamic doctrine and practice . Both are allowed under our First Amendment's free speech clause.

There is no human right more essential than the right to life, which Islam denies with Moe's declaration that our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims (Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387) and its declaration of perpetual war against us (Surah At-Taubah 29). There is one way to alienate that right: by initiating aggression. When Iraq trained "the magnificent 19" at Salman Pak, casus belli was established. Holding prisoners of war at Guantanamo or anywhere else is not a violation of human rights. Declaring and prosecuting war on us is the violation of human rights.

Likes of Norris are nowhere to be seen or heard when Holocaust denier is jailed. Each European country has law against denying Holocaust. Did we have a page on Holocaust cartoons on Facebook, the ultimate place of liberty?

My country is not European. our system of laws is different from theirs. We do not outlaw Holocaust denial. I have seen that sort of cartoon and claims on Facebook.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam have recommended severe punishment for Blasphemy. But only Islamic connection makes it to headline. Even UN General Assembly has passed several resolutions which called upon the world to take action against the "defamation of religions”.

Islam has not been defamed, it is infamous, by design. Moe set out to build a reputation for barbarian rapine for the purpose of intimidating his intended victims (Surah Al-Anfal 57, Surah Al-Hashr 13).

Every community reacts in same way when their religious feelings are hurt. It is rightly so.

American Christians withstood such works of art as "Piss Christ" as well as numerous books and movies without rioting or murdering anyone. The U.N. resolutions mentioned above are not limited to cartoons, they condemn all criticism of Islam including blog posts and documentary videos.

Sphere: Related Content

Why the Defamation of Religions Resolution is Unacceptable

Two paragraphs of the latest HRC Defamation of Religions resolution contain expressions which clearly demonstrate the reality that makes such resolutions unacceptable.

7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and, in this regard, regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience,

9. Reaffirms the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-terrorism Strategy, adopted without a vote by the General Assembly in its resolution 60/288 of 8 September 2006 and reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and in which it clearly reaffirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or group, as well as the need to reinforce the commitment of the international community to promote, among other things, a culture of peace and respect for all religions, belief`s, and cultures and to prevent the defamation of religions;

Lets get the critical clauses separated from the chaff for examination.

• Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism
• terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or group
• need to... reinforce the commitment... to promote... respect for all religions...

Is the association of Islam with terrorism intrinsically wrong? Islam's canon of scripture & tradition contain relevant evidence which answers that question in the negative.

[3:151]
Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with God, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

[8:12]
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

[8:57]
If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse, with them, those who follow them, that they may remember.

[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 Book who aided them - God did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.

[59:2]
It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from God! But the (Wrath of) God came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers, take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!

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

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.
...

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), ...

Allah said that he would cast terror into the hearts of disbelievers. Allah told the Muslims to make an example of those they defeated. Read 8:57 in the light of the last sentence of 59:2.

Allah commanded Muslims to build and maintain military strength with which to terrorize their intended victims. Then he did cast terror, exemplified in 33:26 and 59:2. Allah told the Muslims that they were stronger than their victims because the victims were afraid of them.

Muhammad bragged about being made victorious by terror. In view of these facts found in Islam's canon, the association of terrorism with Islam is found valid.

General S.K. Malik in The Qur'anic Concept of War, makes the issue crystal clear. His discussion of terror as a strategic concept spans pages 54-60, beginning on page 48 of the pdf file. This quote comes from page 59.

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponents 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.

The fact that such terror is discussed as strategy in a Pakistani military training manual puts the lie to Pakistan's assertion that Islam & terrorism are not linked. It becomes obvious that the OIC, on behalf of Islam, has set out to render us defenseless before Islam's onslaught of terror.

Disproving the popular lies about Islam; that it is peaceful, compatible with liberty & democracy, by reference to Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence does not constitute hate speech or incitement to violence. Using loaded terms such as racism, negative stereotyping, intolerance & defamation throws up a smoke screen Labeling us as bigots and hate mongers who incite violence is a thinly veiled attempt to shut down debate and shield Islam from criticism and exposure.

Islam seeks to impose its blasphemy law upon us, to cast us into prison and fine us for telling the truth about their war cult. Geert Wilders in on trial for exposing Islam in his short documentary, Fitna. In that documentary, and a speech to the Dutch Parliament, Wilders quoted the Qur'an. I documented his quotes in another blog post. See Fitna: Supporting Documentation and Moral Standing: the Complaint.

Islamic law imposes a complete prohibition on criticism of Allah, Muhammad and their system of perpetuating warfare. These quotes from Reliance of the Traveller should make it clear to you. These are items in a list of acts which entail apostasy, penalized by death. The list begins at O8.7.

-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'';

-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.)

Another list, beginning at O11.10 , includes acts which break the treaty of protection, subjecting the dhimmi to the death penalty. These items should be a clue for you.

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-4- kills a Muslim;

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

The previous list should be sufficient to indicate what a dhimmi can't say about Islam. When they speak and write about "negative stereotyping" & "defamation", that is what they have in mind.

Our enemies outnumber us in the UN. We can not win the crucial votes. We must counter attack, using their own weapon against them. ICERD, ICCPR & CPPCG contain provisions which would, if enforced, require that Islam be proscribed by law. The International Qur'an Petition points out those critical provisions and shows how they are violated by fundamental Islamic doctrines. I want you to read and sign that petition and send it to everyone you can hope to influence. Exhort your friends, family and associates to sign and forward it. We need to make it go viral.

Islam is not worthy of respect; it denies the sanctity of our lives and property; declares war upon us, and curses us. Why then should we accept demands for promoting respect and tolerance of Islam?

Sphere: Related Content

Indonesia: Blasphemy Law Abuse

From time to time, documents from IHEU, Freedom House, and similar non-governmental organizations will make reference to the abuse of blasphemy laws to deny the human rights of religious minorities. An editorial in the Jakarta Globe, from December 30, is a case in point.

The article calls for the government and religious leaders to take "concrete and substantial steps" to stop the abuse of "religious freedom in Indonesia". The editorial calls for amendments to the laws and reform in their enforcement. The specific reference is to " article 156a of the Criminal Code.

Jakarta Globe 12/30/09
Abuse of Religious Freedom Hurts Indonesia And Renders God Defenseless

Interestingly, the government often has turned a blind eye when radical Islamic groups violate this very article. Most of the “deviant” sects and individuals charged under this law practiced their beliefs peacefully, yet it has been conservative groups like the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and the Indonesian Mujahideen Council (MMI) that have incited hostilities against these very groups. If the government was to enforce this law strictly and without bias, those conservatives and radicals proven guilty of spreading hatred against humanity through demonstrations, raids, religious gatherings or jihadi Web sites would have been put behind bars long ago.

Such a change would require revision of the 2006 civil registration bill that requires Indonesian citizens to identify their religion on their national identity cards (KTP). The category for religion could either be removed entirely, or people from minority groups could finally be allowed to acknowledge their real beliefs. This would decrease religious discrimination against those whose beliefs lay outside of the country’s six recognized religions. On this note, the government could further promote religious freedom by no longer officially acknowledging only six religions, but by embracing the multitude of religions and beliefs practiced in Indonesia.

The government also must address the violation of religious freedom and human rights made possible by the existence of religious institutions such as the Coordinating Board for Monitoring Mystical Beliefs in Society (Bakor Pakem) and the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI). Tasked with monitoring and resolving instances of deviant interpretation of religious doctrine, Bakor Pakem’s authority has increased state intervention in religious issues in a way that clearly violates the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

Those excerpts from the editorial are sufficient to clarify the issue of undesired side effects of "defamation of religion" resolutions and the proposed protocol to ICERD. The UNHRC is scheduled to take up these Issues March 23. Now is the time for us to make our objections known.

Sphere: Related Content

Respect for Religious Differences?

The impetus for the present diatribe came from this article publiched by the U.S. Mission tyo the UN in Geneva.
Promoting Respect for Religious Differences By Suzanne Nossel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of International Organization Affairs.

Our government is engaged in subtle, highly polished dissembling. In order to point out the clever lies, I have reproduced excerpts from the article in block quote format, with Helvetica or Arial type face, interspersed with my commentary. I have added bold font emphasis to make the lies easier to spot.

Take a close look at the title of the article, in bold blue text above. Do you spot the lie? The article is about a counter proposal offered as a substitute for the OIC's campaign to outlaw criticism of Islam. It is not about respecting differences, it is about respecting Islam. When the differences between Christianity and Islam are considered, the differences are so stark that respect is impossible.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, sent to save sinners through acceptance of God's grace. We believe that he was crucified, died and was resurrected. Muslims believe that Isa, their name for Jesus, was fully human, Allah's slave, not God's son, was not crucified, neither died nor resurrected and will return as a genocidal warlord who will lead the Muslim army in its final conquest, exterminating the Jews. How in Hell can any sentient person exepct us to respect that blasphemy? The details, for those who don't know, are documented in The Defamation of Jesus Christ.

Over the last decade, we have witnessed a campaign to attempt to counter religious hatred through bans on speech under the rubric of prohibitions on the “defamation of religions.” This effort has taken root in a series of resolutions at the U.N.’s General Assembly in New York and its Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Far from attempting to counter religious hatred, the OIC, as the representative of Islam in the absence of a Caliphate, is acting out religious hatred by attempting to impose Islam's blasphemy law upon the entire world through the agency of the United Nations. Religious hatred is not the issue. Defamation is not the issue. Proscribing defamation by law would not reduce hatred in any case, it would only cause it to fester. Take a close look at Islamic law, quoted from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.

• 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;

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

• O11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

• -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

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

The penalty for apostasy is death.

• O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
• O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

The code in O11.10 refers to the treaty of protection afforded to conquered Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians who, as an alternative to conversion to Islam, make annual payments of tribute and exist under conditions of humiliation & subjection. When a dhimmi violates those rules, the caliph can kill him at will.

Islam's Hellbent determination to impose its blasphemy law on us is not about defamation, it is about supremacism. Islam claims to have a monopoly on divine truth, all else is false. They are attempting to impose through "international law" what they can not yet impose by force of arms.

Some U.N. member states supportive of these resolutions are banding together to try to impose a global ban on offensive speech in the form of a binding instrument under international law.

Any criticism of Allah, Moe & their doctrines & practices is offensive to Islam. The prime examples they cite are the Motoons and Fitna:. Although the most famous of the cartoons depicts an explosive device, which Moe never had in his possession, he was, by his own admission, a terrorist.

The irony of this effort is that the concept of “defamation of religion” has been used to crack down on religious minorities that espouse beliefs deemed by the State to defame a national or majority-supported religion. Moreover, many of the countries that support the defamation of religion apply the concept to protect one religion only, and are — within their own countries — accepting of hostile language and acts that target minority faiths.

Irony? No, that is the intended result, not a misapplication. Defamation of Islam is a shibboleth created for political purposes, not a real and substantive issue.

These contradictions demonstrate that the drive to impose a global ban on offensive speech will not protect members of all religions on an equal basis, as U.N. resolutions and international legal norms must do. Nor will they address the specific and legitimate concerns about the treatment and mistreatment of Muslim minorities globally. Concerns about the treatment of Muslim minorities warrant concerted action on the international stage, but through steps and measures that actually work, rather than bans on free speech.

Equality of application would not make Islam's blasphemy laws acceptable. If you shield Judiasm, Christianity and other religions from criticism along with Islam, you still make it impossible to accurately identify and characterize the implaccable foe who has declared and is prosecuting war against us. Had Hitler declared Mein Kampf to be divine revelation and National Socialism to be a religion, we would not have been able to use those propaganda posters in WW2 under the proposed regime. The intent is, that in George Washington's words: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”[http://www.georgewashingtonsociety.org/Mission.html]

What legitimate concerns? We have laws against assault & harassment. It is not Muslims who are being murdered, raped, tortured and burned out of their homes, businesses and churches in Egypt,.Indonesia & Pakistan.

It is not mythical assaults and murders they seek to prevent, it is revelation & recognition of the truth about Islam: that it is a war cult which seeks to destroy western civilization and plunge the world into theocratic tyranny. Measures to promote that objective are undesirable, whether or not they are effective.

The United States has worked strenuously to oppose defamation-based approaches on the basis that they are inconsistent with fundamental freedoms of speech and expressions, including the values endorsed by U.N. member states through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The United States has given lip service to the concept of freedom of expression, but, in October of '09, the State Department co-sponsored the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution, which substitutes "negative stereotyping" for "defamation", a distinction without a difference.

As an alternative to the efforts that would ban speech in order to prohibit “defamation of religion,” we are proposing to achieve the goal of promoting religious pluralism and acceptance of religious difference through the kinds of steps that we have seen be effective in our own country and across the globe: enactment and enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination; bans on hate crimes; education, training and dialogue to promote religious tolerance.

Get a clue.

• 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.
• 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!

Islam's scripture says that we are going to Hell and curses us in addition to declaring perpetual war against us. Religious pluralism? Acceptance?? In your dreams!! Why would anyone desire to promote tolerance of a "religion" which sanctifies and mandates genocidal conquest & terrorism? Tolerance must be reciprocal; Islam is not tolerant. The two ayat quoted above prove this fact without any room for doubt.

Islam is a predator; We are prey. For the sake of safety, we must be allowed to truthfully discuss Islam. The Ad Hoc Committee will meet again in March.. We do not know how long it will take them to produce their protocol to ICERD, but I have no doubt that, barring a miracle, President Obama or his successor will sign it and the Senate will ratify it.

Sphere: Related Content

"Defamation" Resolutions: Restricted Liberty Impaired Rights

Several excellent articles have been written about the (unintended?) consequences of the UN's resolutions Combating Defamation of Religions. Now two courageous writers have added a new dimension to the discussion by generalizing about the consequences on the ground and naming the prime offender.

Abuse of Religious Freedom Hurts Indonesia And Renders God Defenseless by Muh Taufiqurrohman and Rebecca Lunnon is clear, specific and well written. If their lives are shortened as a consequence of the publication of their article, I will not be surprised.

Besides identifying the problem and suggesting solutions, the authors have identified the principal antagonist.

In addition to harmonizing these outdated laws, the government needs to replace problematic statutes like the 1965 Law on Prevention of Abuse and Defamation of Religions, the 2006 Revised Joint Ministerial Decree on the Construction of Houses of Worship and the 1978 Guidelines for the Propagation of Religion with an all encompassing law guaranteeing religious freedom. Such a law could be written along the lines of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits the government from making any laws to establish a religion, impose religious observance or prohibit the free exercise of religion. The law should give all individuals the freedom to express a diversity of views, as long as they do not incite religious hatred or violate the rights of others. [...]

The government also must address the violation of religious freedom and human rights made possible by the existence of religious institutions such as the Coordinating Board for Monitoring Mystical Beliefs in Society (Bakor Pakem) and the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI). Tasked with monitoring and resolving instances of deviant interpretation of religious doctrine, Bakor Pakem’s authority has increased state intervention in religious issues in a way that clearly violates the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

The Related Articles sidebar links to two specific examples of violent abuse. Everyone who is concerned about the erosion of religious liberty should click the title link and read the entire article.

Sphere: Related Content

Combating Defamation of Religions: Vote Trend

The optimists will say that the General Assembly vote trend on Defamation of Religions resolutions favors freedom. I am not so optimistic. Only eight votes swung in our favor between '08 & '09 and the abstention trend was flat. The slope of the yes vote line seems flatter this year compared to the previous decline. The quantitative growth has been in abstentions, not negations. Abstentions have no effect on the outcome. Unfortunately, a plurality still supports the resolutions, voting against freedom of religion and expression.

2005 101 53 20
2006 111 54 18 Wikipedia
2007 108 51 25
2008 86 53 42
2009 80 61 42* ACLJ * ACLJ shows 42 abstentions, the UN tally shows 43.

Yes votes

No votes

Abstentions

If the current trend holds, the resolution could be defeated in '11. but I do not expect that to happen. I expect that, if the vote grows closer. many member states will jump from abstention to the yes column. If they wanted the resolution to fail, they would vote no instead of abstaining.

Sphere: Related Content

Combating Defamation of Religions: the Substance

The final text of the Combating Defamation of Religions resolution (passed 12/18/'09) spans pages 67-72 of a 151 page pdf file: A/64/439/Add.2, part II. If you want to read it aloud, you'd better take breath control lessons, because the resolution is basically one long run on sentence. It begins by recalling and reaffirming previous resolutions and documents. The trip down the memory lane sewer is followed by a series of statements of alarm and concern.

Expressing serious concern at the increase in racist violence...

Are they seriously concerned about the recent burning and looting of Christian churches, homes and businesses in Egypt & Pakistan? Of course not, that is not what concerns them.

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,

No, their concern is about the Dutch Freedom Party and similar parties in Europe which express concern about Islamic encroachment & demographic conquest. But they are deeply concerned about:

the negative projection of certain religions in the media

Next they progress to stressing:

the 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,

Do they refer to these examples?

• 1:7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
• 8:55. Verily, The worst of moving (living) creatures before Allâh are those who disbelieve , - so they shall not believe.
• 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
• 9:30. 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!
• 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).
  

Islamic scripture calumniates Jews, Christians and disbelievers in general, then it declares war and incites violence against them. Where is the U.N.'s concern about that prime exemplar of evil? See what else they are stressing.

the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general,

Reaffirming that discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes a violation of human rights and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter,

What is defamation of religions; what constitutes incitement to hatred? Who decides? I direct your attention to Ban Ki-moon's egregious condemnation of the short documentary by Geert Wilders.

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

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

The man chiefly responsible for enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that there is no right to tell the truth about Islam. [Emphasis added for clarity.] Fitna is not hate speech nor is it incitement; it accurately depicts Islamic hate speech and incitement.

Demonstrating the intimate connection (cause & effect) between Islam's scripture and violence evidently constitutes hate speech and violence. Take a good long look at the incidents the OIC complains about in their Islamophobia report. Here is what it all boils down to.

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

Human rights violations? Such as the right to life? How about the right to be secure in their person and property? How are our rights affected by the declaration of war previously cited (9:29)? How are our rights affected by Muhammad's complete denial of them, as well as the sanctity of our blood & property?

Is Islam wrongly associated with terrorism? Who created that association? What did Allah say about terrorism?

• 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.
• 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).
  

Allah said that he would cast terror, Muslims must cast terror, and they did cast terror. What did Muhammad say?

• Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331 [...] Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. [...]
• Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220 [...] I have been made victorious with terror [...]

Allah said he would cast terror, Moe said he was made victorious by it. There is nothing wrong with the association of Islam with terrorism! Lets look at the specific application of the wrongly associated meme.

Reiterates the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which was adopted without a vote by the General Assembly on 8 September 200614 and reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and which clearly confirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group, stressing the need to reinforce the international community’s commitment to promote a culture of peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures and prevent the defamation of
religions;

Any association of Islam with terrorism is defamatory by default. So I have defamed Islam by quoting from its own canon of scripture and tradition. Yeah, right. What is the bottom line?

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

Do you remember what Ban said about Fitna ("incitement to violence")? They postulate a national obligation to criminalize documentaries such as Fitna and this blog post.

The Combating Defamation of Religious resolutions are propaganda, not law. But they serve to add a false patina of legitimacy to existing blasphemy laws in Pakistan and other places where they are used to persecute adherents of minority religions. They also create an atmosphere of support for the proposed protocol to ICERD which is slowly progressing in the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. That protocol will become binding international law.

For an extensive bibliography refer to: Defamation of Religions: Background Info. To find U.N. documents referenced in the resolution's foot notes use this search engine.

Sphere: Related Content

H.R. Clinton: Free Speech

Remarks on the Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century


Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Georgetown University's Gaston Hall
Washington, DC
December 14, 2009

In our first session, we cosponsored the successful resolution on Freedom of Expression, a forceful declaration of principle at a time when that freedom is jeopardized by new efforts to constrain religious practice, including recently in Switzerland, and by efforts to criminalize the defamation of religion – a false solution which exchanges one wrong for another. And in the United Nations Security Council, I was privileged to chair the September session where we passed a resolution mandating protections against sexual violence in armed conflict.

The Secretary of State packed three lies into the single sentence quoted above.

1. The cited resolution is not a forceful declaration of principle. While it is acclaimed as a rejection of the concept of 'defamation of religion', it embraces 'negative stereotyping' as a grounds for outlawing expression, a distinction without a difference. The clear intention is to make criticism of Islam a criminal offense.
2. The Swiss ban on minaret construction does not impair practice, it outlaws erection of a symbol of supremacism. I find no mention of minarets in the Hilali & Khan Noble Qur'an translation. I find no reference to the construction of minarets in the four top hadith collections & Ibn Kathir's Tafsir except to the rebuilding of one destroyed by fire.
3. There is no wrong to exchange; declaration of the fact that Muhammad, founder of Islam, was a terrorist is not wrong, neither is it an act which should be criminalized. While the Motoons exaggerate, they expose reality. Exposing the violent verses of the Qur'an is not wrong, it is an an exposure of intrinsic evil, as in the case of Geert Wilders' documentary, Fitna. There is no justification for outlawing Fitna and the Motoons. Unlike Islamic scripture, they neither inculcate hatred nor incite violence. The riots which followed publication of the Motoons were incited by incendiary sermons at Juma Salat, not by the Motoons.

Sphere: Related Content

Defamation of Religions: Preliminary Vote

WND reports that the Third Committee held a preliminary vote Nov. 12 on the Defamation of Religions resolution: 81:55:43. Support declined by 5 votes, opposition increased by 2 and abstentions increased by 1. The present level of support indicates that the General Assembly will pass the resolution.

The good news is that, while the resolution will pass, it will not become enforcible law. The bad news is that it will give the UN stamp of approval to blasphemy laws used by Pakistan and other nations to suppress and persecute Christians and other minorities. The resolution calls on member states to enact and enforce legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

The Department of State expresses opposition to inclusion of references to defamation of religions, but it supports inclusion of negative stereotypes, as included in the recent Freedom of Belief and Expression resolution. Examine the relevant text from that document. [Emphasis added.]

Also expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents;

This sample is from last year's draft resolution.

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;

The following sample is from Pakistan's submission to the Ad Hoc Committee for Elaboration of Complementary Standards.

legal prohibition of publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults, or uses offensive language in matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings, with the aim or protecting their fundamental human rights,

What are they really complaining about? We can get a hint from their latest Islamophobia report, which contains a list of "Islamophobic incidents".

Political and Social Campaigns against Islam and Muslims

Campaign Warns Americans about Looming Shariah Code – Detroit billboard said religious law imposed by Islam threatened rights. Members of the United American Committee (UAC) stated that Shariah might be spreading around the world, but it was not going to be established in the United States without opposition. Officials had reportedly erected a 48-foot-long billboard just outside of Detroit, home to one of the largest groups of Muslims in the U.S.


Danish Muhammad Cartoonist Returns with New Work – Kurt Westergaard, the Danish caricaturist forced into hiding after the publication of his depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, was set to return with a new set of potentially controversial drawings. According to a Report in the Copenhagen Post, Westergaard was expected to have 26 illustrations in a new book that compiled the
sardonic columns by Danish writer Lars Hedegaard for the Berlingske Tidende newspaper.

Wilders plans second anti-Islam film – Rightwing MP Geert Wilders has told De Telegraaf newspaper that he was planning to make a follow-up to his controversial anti-Islam film, Fitna. The new piece, expected to be released in 2010, will deal with the negative effects of what Wilders called the advance of Islam in Western countries.

If those examples do not make it clear to you, examine this quote from a letter sent by the OIC to the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Cmte. in October.

For instance, the British National Putty leader Nick Grffin has referred to Islam as a "a vicious and wicked religion"; some in Switzerland are strongly opposed to the construction of minarets on mosques as symbols of Islam; while in Denmark and the Netherlands the personality of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has been deliberately ridiculed with the intention to violate the sentiments of Muslims. These are only some of the clear examples not just of discrimination against Muslims as individuals but of Islam as a religion as well as well as its revered personalities and sacred symbols. Accordingly, the contention that human rights standards should apply only to individuals is not credible. Therefore, the OIC ls advocating the need to address these concepts in a holistic and legal manner: to avoid their negative impact on the fundamental rights and freedoms to be enjoyed by the individuals, groups of individuals and communities. [Emphasis added. ]

It becomes clear that Islam will not tolerate any criticism whatsoever. Islam seeks to criminalize all criticism, regardless of the truth thereof. The obvious references to Fitna and the Danish cartoons leave no doubt. Fitna displayed the hate speech & violence which fill the Qur'an along with their effects in the Arab street. The Cartoons depict Moe as a terrorist, which he was even though he never possessed a bomb. He said that he was "made victorious with terror."

What can we do about this situation? Nothing directly, but we can sign and promote two on line petitions opposing the resolution and one that counter attacks.

• Open Doors has a Free To Believe campaign.
• ACLJ has a petition campaign of their own and is lobbying the European delegations.
• The International Qur'an Petition is a good counter attack. Sign it send it to everyone you can influence. Exhort the recipients to sign and forward the petition.
• A sense of the House resolution opposing the OIC censorship campaign languishes in the Foreign Affairs Cmte. It has gained two more co-sponsors, but it needs to be voted on before the final vote in the General Assembly.
• H.Res. 763: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations resolutions on the "defamation of religions" are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their religious beliefs.

Sign those petitions and solicit the support of everyone you can hope to influence. Urge your Congressman to sign onto H. Res. 763 as a co-sponsor and work to get it to the floor for a vote. If you know your Zip Code, you can use the email form at http://www.congress.org/ .

Sphere: Related Content