Islamophobia

CAIR Video: One Man's Fight Against Islamophobia
CAIR's National Executive Director, Nihad Awad was interviewed by Dan Harris of ABC News April 20, '10, stemming from CAIR's objection to an interview with Wafa Sultan. I found this eight minute, 55 second video at Bare Naked Islam.



The video begins with brief excerpts from a speech and interview with Wafa Sultan. I suspect that the excerpts come from the Freedom Defense Initiative at CPAC in March. Video from that interview was found at Atlas Shrugs. The video confirmed my suspicion. Of course, the only "islamophobia" in the video was in brief cuts from her appearances on Al Jazeera.



I hope to select and transcribe the most egregious lies from Nihad Awad's interview. Do not assume that my transcription is word for word perfect, my hearing is poor, Awad speaks softly, and my computer's sound card is weak.

Wafa Sultan was shown telling FDI that "We must deal with the evil of Islam right now" so that our children won't have to deal with it..."so that the next generation can live in peace". Harris wanted to know what bothered Awad about that interview. .

"From the beginning we strongly believe in free speech. People are entitled to their opinions no matter how wrong they are. But when a person of this nature is interviewed and not challenged; is not opposed or there is no balance in the presentation, you feel that something was missing and that the racist remarks she made and allegations that she made against Muslims as a whole defies logic--defies common sense and basic knowledge... people learn about Islam--they know about Islam--she just reinforces stereotypes and mis-information and she was not challenged."

Islam does not believe in free speech. Islam forbids denial, questioning, sarcasm & reviling Allah, his messenger, the Qur'an and the doctrines derived from it.
Mentioning anything "impermissible" about Islam is one of the violations of dhimma which can cause a dhimmi to lose his protection from Muslims and be killed. The list of attitudes and acts entailing apostasy is documented here; the list of acts prohibited to dhimmis is documented here.

There was nothing inflammatory in the brief interview with Wafa Sultan. The closest she came to "Islamophobia" was in the clip from her speech at FDI when she mentioned "the evil of Islam". There wasn't anything concrete to counter in that interview, which lacked ideological detail.

The allegation of racist remarks is absolutely unfounded. Sultan explicitly stated that her opposition was to Islam, not to Muslims. Islam is not a race; it has enslaved and victimized people of several races. What allegations did she make "against Muslims as a whole"? She said that Islam is evil, and it is. Islam is violent, ordaining warfare, praising self sacrifice in battle against disbelievers as the best deed. Allah sanctifies terrorism and demands genocide. Islam declared war, permanent war, until the entire world is conquered.

Asked about intolerance, of which Islam is accused, Awad replied:

" That is just dead wrong, because Islamic history shows different than what people claim and the Qur'an...the best answer is from the Qur'an, otherwise, if you hear from someone as he would say... trying to spin the issue... the Qur'an emphasizes freedom, freedom of thought and religion...'let there be no compulsion in religion' this comes direct from the Qur'an, nobody can misunderstand it, nobody can misinterpret it. You can not force people to believe and act ... these are the words in the Qur'an. "

Islamic history shows extreme intolerance. I refer to the Pact of Umar. Hitler did not invent distinctive clothing for Jews, he adopted it from Islam. 3:85 clearly declares that choosing a religion other than Islam will never be accepted. Muslims are instructed, when encountering Jews & Christians on the road, not to gree them first and to shove them into the ditch. Doubt me? Then look it up: Sunan Abu Dawud 41.5186.

"No compulsion..." comes from 2:256. 3:110 declares believing Muslims to be the "best of peoples"; the meaning of that verse is explained in Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80 : " means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam. ".

Asked about the treatment of women in KSA, for example:

" You have to differentiate between culture and religion and sometimes there is a big difference between the two. My understanding of my faith ... women are not only protected but they can be leaders in the Muslim World, when you look at Pakistan, Turkey and Bangladesh, they can be leaders in the Muslim world. "

Awad is playing a subtle semantic game. Islam is not a religion, it is a deen: way of life. It encompasses all aspects of human activity, culture included. Women are chattel property, "tilth", literally a field to be plowed and seeded. They are inferior to men, deemed deficient. Moe had something pertinent to say about female rulers : When Allah's Apostle was informed that the Persians had crowned the daughter of Khosrau as their ruler, he said, "Such people as ruled by a lady will never be successful."


Asked about the aftermath of 9-11; Islamophobia :

"Our job is getting more difficult every day although we see a new tone in the new administration, we see a hand extended to the Muslim world, ...we see a positive speech toward Muslims and a tone of reconciliation; but I believe the situation overall is getting worse. Islamophobia is being accelerated in the United States, I haven't seen clergy or political leader who stands up and pushes against bigotry against Muslims. "

"Islamophobia" implies irrational fear and loathing of Islam. After 9-11, considering the untimely deaths of approximately 270*10⁶ people in the last 1400 years, fear and loathing of Islam is not irrational. Muslims label well documented blog posts such as this "Islamophobia".

If the media were more responsible, and our leaders were better, isn't your job made more difficult by the identity of the terrorists ...

"Its important to recognize that the majority of Muslims and organizations including ours, leaders and clergy in the United States and around the world have condemned 9-11 and I believe we were the first organization on the face of the earth to condemn 9-11 but months and years after that we are always confronted on some national television show: 'where are the moderate Muslims--where is the condemnation' and we say we did, but who is listening? Which national network has displayed or communicated or shown our condemnation? I think our voices are somehow excluded and ignored because as we say 'if it bleeds, it leads' . Maybe our statements are not amusing to the ear of people who are accustomed to seeing violence on television but they do not see Muslim leaders coming to condemn this violence. We are condemning the violence, but we do not want to be defined by condemning violence. There are seven million Muslims in the United States. There are engineers, doctors, public servants, educators, they do great work to make America better every day; I'd like to see stories about these people ... I do not want to see my faith, which has been hijacked by a very tiny minority in the world, to be defined by their acts while the majority of us are having to stand up and condemn the acts of the few. "

So they condemned the attack on the World Trade Center. Wonderful, now we should form a circle, hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Yeah, right. Malicious malarkey! They condemn attacks on "innocents"; another semantic game tactic. Only Muslims can be innocent. Anyone who is not Muslim is a rebel against Allah, who deserves to be killed. 5:33 prescribes hudud for those who "wage war against Allah". That expression is defined in Ibn Kathir's tafsir of that verse:

"`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. ".

Take note of the word I highlighted in that definition; disbelief = waging war against Allah. They will not denounce, condemn and abjure the damnable doctrines which sanctify and mandate offensive conquest, genocide & terrorism because that would be an act entailing apostasy.

Seven minutes and forty eight seconds into the interview, Awad tells the big lie: " I do not want to see my faith, which has been hijacked by a very tiny minority in the world, to be defined by their acts while the majority of us are having to stand up and condemn the acts of the few. "

Islam has not been hijacked. As previously documented, casting terror is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam and offensive conquest is a permanent mandate, in the course of which genocide must be performed. The founder of Islam was a terrorist. Have you read the Qur'an? Try 33:26-27. Even if you never read another hadith, read Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220.

Eight minutes and twelve seconds into the interview, asked if he gets threats, Awad answers in the affirmative, during which statement, he is framed in the camera's viewfinder as if to simulate the view through an assassin's telescopic rifle sight. he says that when he speaks sincerely, from his heart people listen and believe him. Those must be rare occasions, rare indeed.

Sphere: Related Content

Censorship of Islamophobia: Ignite the Backfire

One paragraph of the Executive Summary of OIC's Islamophobia Report merits close examination.

Almost all international covenants, instruments and treaties clearly emphasize that freedom of
expression should be exercised with responsibility¹.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which enjoys universal application stipulates in Article 19: “… the exercise of these rights [including freedom of expression] carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may be subject to certain restriction¹.”

Article 20: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.²”

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights stipulates: “The exercise of these freedoms since it carries with it duties and responsibilities may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties¹.”

1. Those remarks are the Islamic pretext for imposing censorship on criticism of Islam. They are asserting and escalating provisions for limitation on free speech. Islam, acting through the OIC, is lobbying for the creation of binding international law which will criminalize any and every negative expression about Islam. The Ad Hoc Committee on Contemporary Standards is meeting to compose a protocol to ICERD for that purpose. The U.N. General Assembly is expected to take up its annual Defamation of Religions resolution next month.

2. The prohibition of religious hatred can and must be made to backfire on Islam. Muslims accuse us of hate speech when we expose Islamic doctrines & practices to public view. Their intent is to prevent us from lifting the lid from the septic tank and shining the light of truth on its contents.

If Article 20 is to be enforced, then publication of and preaching from the Qur'an & hadith must be prohibited by law; effectively banning Islam. The Islamic violations of Article 20 include but are not limited to the following verses which incite Muslims to make war upon disbelievers, Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians. . [Emphasis added.]

• 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

• 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

• 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).

• 47:4. So, when you meet (in fight Jihâd in Allâh's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till they embrace Islâm (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allâh's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, He will never let their deeds be lost,

• 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."

• Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526
  Narrated Anas ibn Malik:
  
  The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.

• Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
  Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

• 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.

The Jihad imperatives listed above are mandatory, not optional because of another critical verse.

• 2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.

Abu Dawud 14.2526 informs us that the Jihad mandate does not expire before the end of the world. Muslim 41.6985 informs us that Jihad culminates in the extermination of the Jews on the last day. From 9:38-39 we learn that Muslims will be condemned to Hell for refusing to join the Jihad.

• 9:38. O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allâh (i.e. Jihâd) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.
• 9:39 If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is Able to do all things.

Likewise, 61:10-13 proclaim salvation through joining the Jihad.

• 61:10. O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment.
• 61.11. That you believe in Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know!
• 61:12. (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn ­ Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.

Is there any greater incitement than the threat of Hell and promise of Paradise? It is obvious on the face of the facts that Islam must be proscribed by law for violation of Article 20 of ICCPR. The meaning of the cited ayat is clear, beyond dispute. You can confirm that fact by looking them up at http://www.qutafsir.com/ . Because of those ayat and Moe's excellent example, personally engaging in 19 battles between 623 and 632, Islamic law requires Muslims to mount a minimum of one attack in every year.

"The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

Islam is perfected. Allah's word can not be changed. Will we submit and live as slaves under their sufferance? Will we resist and suffer perpetual attacks of asymmetrical warfare ? Or will we rise up and demand that Islam be outlawed as the human rights violator it is? Let us, for the love of liberty, take the latter course. Endorse the International Qur'an Petition, exhort your family, friends and associates to endorse it, send it to your legislators and be persistent in the pursuit of justice. The 'right to practice Islam' is not compatible with our right to live and be free. If Muslims have a ritht to practice Islam, then we have no rights! Take another long hard look at Bukhari 1.8.387. It says that our blood is not sacred to Muslims. That means that they can attack and plunder us with impunity. We only obtain rights and protect ourselves by becoming Muslims.

The practice of Islam involves Jihad. Jihad involves genocide and terrorism. Those are foundational, intrinsic sacraments inseverable from the practice of Islam. Jihad can not be abandoned, to do so would subject Muslims to Allah's curse of disgrace which would not be lifted until they return to their "original religion". Jihad, their "original religion", is defined by Islamic law as "to war against non-Muslims"[Reliance of the Traveller, O9.0].

The conflict imposed by Islam is existential. Rational debate requires putting away childish concepts of political correctness & multiculturalism. Our rights to live; create, own, use & exchange property and believe and worship as we choose can not be subordinated to an arrogantly declared right to plunder us and enslave our orphans. How can anyone have a right to teach his children that they have a divine right & duty to engage in aggression & commit genocide?

Sphere: Related Content

Combating Defamation of Religions: Anticipation

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.

3. 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.
4. 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!
5. Read The Defamation of Jesus Christ to learn how Islam denies his patrimony, crucifixion, death & resurrection and depicts him as a genocidal warlord.
6. 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.

7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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?
10. 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?
11. 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.

12. 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.
13. 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.

14. 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. .
15. "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.
16. Translation: "embrace Islam and you will be safe", a common theme in Moe's extortion letters.
17. "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.
18. "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.
19. 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.

20. 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.
21. Many Muslims do not assimilate, they form enclaves and eventually demand the privilege of operating them under Shari'ah.
22. 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.

Sphere: Related Content

UNHRC US Delegation Reveals Treachery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

• Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper 08/04/09 The cmte. President's outline of the program of censorship. This document is crucial to comprehending the related posts which follow in this list.
• Ad Hoc Committee: African Submission 08/03/09 Detailed analysis of the Africa group's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Cmte USA Submission 08/03/09 This nation is governed by irrational idiots & traitors. Read it and weep.
• Ad Hoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission 08/03/09 Detailed analysis of the OIC's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Committee: Iranian Submission 08/03/09 Detailed analysis of Iran's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards 08/01/09 They aim to add a protocol to ICERD to criminalize these blog posts.

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

Sphere: Related Content

AdHoc Cmte USA Submissionrelated intolerance,complementary standards, Islamophobiarelated intolerance,complementary standards, Islamophobia

Outline for the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards Consultations

An additional mechanism, the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards was created by the Human Rights Council in 2006 to fill gaps in CERD, and to provide new normative standards aimed at combating all forms of contemporary aspects of racism.

The committee's mission is to write new international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam. They solicited suggestions from the member nations to get the process started. Islam, because it is false and malicious, can not tolerate criticism. Islamic law prescribes the death penalty for any criticism of Allah, Moe, and their doctrines. Muslims, acting through the OIC and its clique in the United Nations, are demanding the enactment and enforcement of national and international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam. While specifically complaining of the Danish Cartoons and the short documentary created by Geert Wilders, their demand for censorship is much broader.

Unlike Iran and Pakistan, the United States did not submit demands for criminalizing criticism of Islam. Unfortunately, the two page submission, which begins on page 26, displays an a high level of cognitive dissonance. [ Emphasis added.]

The United States wishes to reiterate its committment to fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and looks forward to working with other States contributing to initiatives that promote tolerance and respect for diversity. The United States is home to individuals from diverse racial, religions and ethnic backgrounds. .We are profoundly aware of the destructive consequences of racism and understand the concerns that have given rise to the work of this Committee.

"Related intolerance" is a code phrase for "Islamophobia", which is equated with racism. There is no rational basis for fighting rational objections to Islamic doctrine and practice!

The United States has learned from the experience in our own country how crucial robust free expression and a thriving marketplace of ideas are to the promotion of tolerance, religious freedom, greater understanding among individuals of different backgrounds, and ultimately to the defeat of racist and discriminatory ideas in societies. Similarly, the United States believes in the importance of engaging in proactive governmental outreach and policies to
assure racial, ethnic, and religious groups are protected and respect for diversity is promoted. Such governmental outreach can take a variety of forms, including the holding of town hall meetings and conferences with affected groups to listen and learn of the challenges they face and develop ways for the government to better address their concerns. These actions, which are based upon a moral and social responsibility to combat advocacy to national, racial or religious
hatred, rather than a legal obligation to punish hateful expression, are essential to simultaneously maintaining robust free expression and allowing the government to take an active role in the promotion of tolerance and respect.

This would appear, at first glance to be a robust defense of our first amendment freedom of expression. But an examination of the first listed objective throws a bucket of cold water on that hope. "promotion of tolerance", in this context, can only mean tolerance of the intolerable: Islam.

Combating advocacy to religious hatred requires combating Islam because Islamic doctrine expressed in the Qur'an is the primary source of religion based hatred.

"Rather than a legal obligation to punish hateful expression" is a loaded clause which, while appearing to deny demands for blasphemy laws, actually condemns the Danish Cartoons, Fitna, and all other truthful negative expressions about Islam. as "hate speech".

"Promotion of Tolerance and respect" is an indication of irrational idocy. In the current context, it can only mean "tolerance of and respect for Islam". Islam is not worthy of respect and must never be tolerated because it is perpetual war and confers an open season license to kill, enslave, rape, pillage & plunder.

The United States does not believe that amendments to the international human rights legal framework - or new interpretations of existing legal obligations - are warranted to fight the scourges cf racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Rather than seeking additional restrictions to expression, the United States advocates for more robust governmental outreach policies with respect to racial, ethnic and religious groups as well as the institution of appropriate legal regimes that deal with discriminatory acts and hate crimes.

Nothing is warranted to fight "related intolerance", which is a code phrase for opposition to Islam. Ordinarily, I would happily accept the rejection of Islam's contumacious demand for legislation unconstitutionally restricting my right of free expression. But that rejection is coupled with an implicit acceptance of the enemy's false premise, which renders it null and void.

The United States views racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance as serious challenges facing the international community and believes they must be dealt with by the Ad Hoc Committee in a methodical and deliberate manner. The United States submits that this process of self-examination and action by international community begin with greater opporttutities to exchange views and address empirical data and practice on matters related to racial, ethnic, and religious diversity, discrimination, and intolerance so as to broaden our common understanding of these important issues and provide a solid foundation f or a broad-based consensus further actions and initiatives.

Inclusion of "related intolerance", which refers to objections to Islamic doctrine & practice, implicitly accepts the enemy's false premise and can not be accepted. It makes me ashamed to be an American. How can my government sink so low as to condemn my advocacy of life & liberty and demand that I tolerate the existence of a predatory institution whose mission is mercenary and whose method is to deprive free men of life, liberty and property?


The submission offers a list of suggested substitutes for the legislative program demanded by Islam. It proposes to study the cause of "advocacy of hatred", ignoring the fact that the damnable doctrines enshrined in the Qur'an, preached in every Mosque and taught in every Madrassa, are the principal source of that advocacy.

Another suggestion constitutes an irrational surrender.

• Evolution of Legal and Policy Frameworks: An assessment of the evolution of domestic legal and policy frameworks dealing with these issues and how effective they have been in dealing with intolerance and discrimination. Such an assessrnent would also review any distinctions made within these frameworks between actions taken based upon a moral and social responsibility to combat advocacy to national, racial or religious hatred on the one hand and those based upon a legal obligation to prohibit such advocacy on the other, and analyze the relative results of each;

To the extent that a person is rational and informed, he will hate Islam, and no attempt should be made to reduce his ardor or extinguish the fire of hatred. Islam is inimical to human life and liberty. Its supremacism, triumphalism and intolerance render it intolerable. The concept of a divine mandate to conquer the world, terrorizing and killing or enslaving everyone who resists is absolutely intolerable. How can there be a legal obligation to prevent rational discussion of the doctrines and practices of a religion of world domination through genocidal warfare?

While ostensibly objecting to demands for legislation eliminating our right of free expression, our government is actually pandering and attempting to appease the enemy by implicitly accepting their false premise.

Sphere: Related Content

AdHoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission

Outline for the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards Consultations

An additional mechanism, the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards was created by the Human Rights Council in 2006 to fill gaps in CERD, and to provide new normative standards aimed at combating all forms of contemporary aspects of racism.

The committee's mission is to write new international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam. They solicited suggestions from the member nations to get the process started.

Pakistan's submission to the committee begins on page 39 and ends on page 41. Since Pakistan acts as the representative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, there is an emphasis on protecting Islam from criticism. It refers to Human Rights Council decision 3/103, which created the committee, and to ICERD.

The submission lists several "Action Points", the following items are from that list. [Emphasis added.]

• further defining the existence of link between an act of incitement and the likelihood of a violation, or the threshold required for reaching such a determinant consistent and uniform application and maximize protection for actual or potential victims.
• development of new internationally binding normative standards in the area of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance while incorporating the following contemporary issues;
• defamation of religions, religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols,
• provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration as a malicious ` violation of the spirit of tolerance,
• prohibition of publication of material with the aim of protecting the rights of others and against seriously or gratuitously offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by the followers of any religion,
• racio-religious profiling,intolerance and discrimination,
• incitement to religious hatred, discrimination and violence,
• abuse of the right to freedom of expression in the context of racio-religious profiling, negative or insulting stereotyping, incitement to
  hatred and violence,
• Islamophobia, xenophobia, and ideological racism,
• new instrument should provide for;
• mandatory prohibition by law to- eliminate racio-religious profiling or profiling based on any grounds of discrimination recognized under
  international human rights law with provisions for legal action against perpetrators, as well as legal guarantees to remedy and reparation for victims,
• legal restrictions on the dissemination or distribution or production, in public or otherwise, of all ideas in any farm based upon racial and religious superiority or hatred and incitement to hatred, and violence,including by use of modern information and communication technologies,
• legal prohibition of publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults, or uses offensive language cm 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,
• legal restriction to public insults and defamation, public incitement to violence, threat against a person or a grouping of persons
  on me grounds of their race, color, language, religion, nationality, or national or ethnic origin,

The bottom line: Pakistan & the OIC join with Iran in demanding national and international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam. Western Civilization is under attack by Islam. Effective and adequate defense requires objective identification & description of the enemy and its doctrine set. The proposals from Iran & Pakistan are designed to hamper our self defense efforts.

They imply that the Danish Cartoons, which portray Muhammad as a terrorist, which, by his own admission he was, constitutes defamation of religion. They imply that Fitna, which juxtaposes Allah's Jihad imperatives in the Qur'an with Islamic violence, constitutes defamation of religion. They demand that all such expressions be criminalized.

Sphere: Related Content

Ad Hoc Cmte: Iranian Submission

Outline for the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards Consultations

An additional mechanism, the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards was created by the Human Rights Council in 2006 to fill gaps in CERD, and to provide new normative standards aimed at combating all forms of contemporary aspects of racism.

The committee's mission is to write new international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam. They solicited suggestions from the member nations to get the process started.

The Iranian submission begins on page 12 of the pdf. and ends on page 17. Although capturing the attitude & meaning of the document through excerpts is not satisfactory, I will not reproduce the entire five page submission here. You can click through to the pdf file and enter 12 in the page window to go directly to the full text of the submission.

The pdf is a scanned document, requiring the use of ocr to cull excerpts. Unfortunately, the printer which created the document needs a head cleaning, and the plate on which it was scanned is dusty, so that ocr was extremely difficult. I have therefore run the spelling checker on the excerpts, they may deviate slightly from the original, but care has been taken to avoid changing the meaning of the text. [Emphasis added.]

The Iranian submission is not novel, it rehashes malicious malarkey from previous resolutions. The following documents were referenced in the text.

• General Assembly resolution 62/154 on combating defamation of religions
• General Assembly resolution 55/23 on Dialogue Among Civilizations
• security Council resolution 1624(2005)
• UDHR
• ICCPR
• International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights
• DDPA
• Special Rapport on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (AIHRC/6/6)

They are off to a fast start in their Introduction, asserting that Islamophobia is a growing trend, becoming pervasive and often officially condoned.

The growing trend of defamation of religions is arising from the following factors: the conflation of race, culture and religion, concept of clash of civilizations and religions, all these provides fertile soil for the defamation of religions.
And also on the fight against terrorism, based on defense of national identity and security, it is reduced to religious
dimension.

Note the clause which I emphasized. Who is it that conflates race with religion? If you can't answer that question, re-read the initial post in this series :
Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, paying close attention to the quote from the report of the African Regional Conference in preparation for the Durban Review.

Unfortunately, insults and intolerance against Islam are being provided intellectual justification by Western scholars
and political lobbies who espouse anti-Islamic agendas, hence lending support to ideological violence against
Muslims. Sophisticated slogans are used to provoke systematic insults against Islam. This phenomenon reflects
the Islarnophobia which afflicts segments of western society.

This paragraph inverts cause and effect. We developed anti-Islamic agendas precisely because of Islam's anti-Christian & anti-western doctrines, agendas & actions. Our accurate descriptions of Islamic doctrines & practices are labled insults and intolerance. Accurate and well documented descriptions of Islamic sanctification & mandate of genocidal conquest and terrorism are labled "insults" and "intolerance".
The last paragraph of the introduction is severely overloaded by implicit reference to the documents listed and linked above.

Lack of action to prevent the reprinting of blasphemous caricatures, and indifference in airing the inflammatory documentary against the holy Quran will be perceived as manifestation of insincerity towards the principles and objectives of various efforts within the United Nations system aiming at promoting understanding and respect among cultures and civilizations. [Links added.]

It should now be clear to you that the Iranian agenda includes criminalizing criticism of Islam, specifically the Danish Cartoons and Geert Wilders' Fitna.

The cartoons depict Muhammad as a terrorist, which, by his own admission, he was. He never threw a bomb, because explosives were invented after he died. he used the primitive weaponry available in the seventh century to terrorize his victims with ruthless slaughter. If you do not comprehend this fact, open your Qur'an to 33:26, 59:2 & 59:13 and read them carefully.

Fitna demonstrates the obvious connection between Islamic doctrine enshrined in the Qur'an. This fact is documented in another blog post. It is extremely unlikely that anyone else will reveal to you the source of Islam's intense determination to criminalize criticism of itself. I will: It comes from Islamic law, codified in Reliance of the Traveller. Book O, which treats of "Justice", includes an outline of the conditions imposed upon dhimmis, who were "people of the book" subjugated by Muslims under a "treaty of protection". Chapter 11.10 lists five acts which violate the treaty of protection and subject the dhimmi to immediate execution. Here is the fifth item in that list.

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

The perceptive reader will want to know what is impermissible to mention. O8.7 lists 20 items which entail apostasy, and describes the list as nearly endless. Here are a few relevant items from that list.

-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;

-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). )

By now you must be wondering about the penalty. Islamic law has that covered, too.

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.

Islamic law is clear on its face: any criticism of Allah or his Messenger gets you killed. The Ad Hoc Committee On Complementary Standards is only the latest tool developed in pursuit of that objective.

Under the heading of "Legal Aspects", Iran describes the cartoons & Fitna as "inconsistent with the spirit of the UN Charter" and various resolutions.

The elimination of discrimination and the protection against Intolerance is in part a matter of legal protection.

They jabber on with quotes about universal freedom, equality and dignity, without finding anything relevant to the matter at hand. The next paragraph is mired in excrement.

Crucially, according to- article 20, paragraph.2 of the ICCPR, " any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law" This provision represents a clear limitation to-the night to fee speech which according to article 19 of the ICCPR carries with it special duties and responsibilities.

The cartoons do not advocate hatred, nor do they incite discrimination, hostility or violence. The same is true of Fitna. Few will perceive the irony in Islam's specious assertion: it is their own scripture, tradition & jurisprudence which advocates hatred and incites violence. If Article 20 were to be enforced, the Qur'an, hadith & Shari'ah would be banned as incitement to violence!

The committee on civil and Political Rights in its general comment 11 provided that these required prohibitions are fully compatible with the right to freedom of expression as contained in Article 19, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities. This is clear indication that human rights instruments recognize provisions against incitement to religions hatred as being a completely legitimate- safeguard against the abuse of the right to free speech.

Iran is asserting that accurately describing Allah's genocidal Jihad imperatives which are found in Surahs Al-Anfal & At-Taubah and confirmed in Sahih Bukhari's Books of Jihad, Khumus & Expedition and codified in Reliance of the Traveller Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraphs 8 & 9 must be legally prohibited as "incitement to religious hatred". Islamic obedience to those imperatives has resulted in 270*10⁶ premature deaths in the last 1400 years but we must be prevented, by judicial penalties, from mentioning it.

Identifying the enemy and describing his doctrines is characterized as an abuse of free speech. This is nothing less than the aggressor's program for depriving us of the ability to defend ourselves against his aggression.

The last section of the submission is under the heading of Programme of Action.

In sum, the right to freedom of expression should be exercised with the responsibilities and limitations as prescribed by law. The international community should initiate a global dialogue to promote a culture of tolerance and peace based on respect for human rights and cultural diversity and urges states, NGOs, religious bodies and media to support and promote such a dialogue. Developing the human rights language to address emerging issues such as defamation of religions was an important step forward that is of interest not only to Muslims but to all the internatioual community.

Our freedom of expression must not include mention of Islam's aggressive doctrines & practices: conquest, genocide & terrorism. A culture of tolerance and peace means being led, dumb like sheep, to the slaughter.

Islamic Republic of Iran urges the Ad hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards to call upon the States to stop the publication of blasphemous caricatures, Elms and media as well as the campaigns for anti-Islamic regulations to take all possible legal and administrative measures to prevent continuation of these deliberate offensive acts, which impinge greatly on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion of the followers of Islam.

They want to add wording to ICERD to criminalize every criticism of Islam. How in Hell does anything we write or say impinge on the liberty of Muslims? Why must they be allowed to continue in the arrogant assumption that they have a divine right and mission to kill, enslave, rape, pillage & plunder us?

Sphere: Related Content