Defamation of Religions vs Negative Stereotyping: SCIRF Gets It Wrong

 Leonard Leo, chairman of the board of SCIRF, testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights  on the International Religious Freedom Report. There is a move underway to defund SCIRF, presumably because its mission conflicts with Obamination's Islamophilia.

    While I sympathize with the SCIRF and believe that it should be preserved, I take issue with Leo's position on the resolution passed by the HRC last March and currently before the 3^rd Committee prior to a General Assembly vote in December.

    I do not contest the fact that SCIRF was instrumental in steering the resolutions in a new direction, I take issue with the assertion that the  resolution has been substantially improved and its negative impact on freedom of belief & expression substantially reduced.  Only the rhetoric has improved, the meaning, intent and effect are not improved.

Defamation of Religion in the United Nations -- Intolerance Resolution Takes the Place of Defamation Resolution: Over the past decade, resolutions in the UN General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council on the so-called defamation of religions sought to establish a global blasphemy law.  USCIRF’s engagement with the State Department, the U.S. Congress and specific UN member states helped bring about a notable decrease in support for these resolutions over the past three years.  It is an example of the catalytic and coordinating role that the Commission has played.

  Since 2008, the resolutions were supported by only a plurality of member states.  Due to this loss of support, the UN Human Rights Council in March 2011 adopted, in place of the divisive “combating defamation of religions” resolution, a consensus resolution on “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”  The resolution properly focuses on protecting individuals from discrimination or violence, instead of protecting religions from criticism.  The new resolution protects the adherents of all religions or beliefs, instead of focusing on one religion.  Unlike the defamation of religions resolution, the new consensus resolution does not call for legal restrictions on peaceful expression, but rather, for positive measures, such as education and awareness-building, to address intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief.

intolerance

    I can not and will never tolerate the practice & propagation of a doctrine which mandates that we be killed or subjugated, our property seized and our widows raped and our orphans sold into slavery.  By God, I stand on the rights seized by the founders, which they enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.  I will not accept demands that I tolerate the intolerable.  I will not abide by laws, national or international, demanding silence in the face of approaching evil.

stereotyping

    Allah commands Muslims to wage war against us in 8:39 & 9:29. Those imperatives are confirmed by Moe's Sunnah in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 and other hadith. They are codified in Shari'ah: Reliance of the Traveller O9.8-9.9. Allah promises Muslims admission to his celestial bordello if they wage war and threatens them with eternal damnation if they shirk.  Allah gives extra credit for a better seat in his bordello if they take any step to injure or enrage us.

    So most Muslims "don't do that / don't believe that". Oh, don't they? Islam is not cafeteria Catholicism, as made clear by 2:85: "Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. ".

    If Muslims "don't do that", then how did the Hindu, Assyrian & Armenian genocides happen?  How do you explain shouts of Takbir in the school at Beslan and the aircraft over New York City? 

    Which Muslim is a believer who fights in Allah's cause, killing and being killed [9:111] and which is a hypocrite whose Islam "will not exceed their throats." [Sahih Bukhari 5.59.638]?

protects individuals

    Who is going to go to Egypt and protect the Copts and their homes, businesses & churches?  Will you send the Marines to Kenya & Nigeria to protect Christians there?  Who will protect Christians in Pakistan?  You and whose army, 24/7/365? 

    You do not protect individuals by passing resolutions, you protect them with "boots on the ground".  You can only protect indigenous Christian minorities by eliminating the Muslims who murder them with impunity. 

    The cartoonists did not assault or kill any Muslims; they did not destroy any property. Muslims, stirred up by rabble rousing Imams at Jumah Salat did that. Exactly how do those resolutions protect Muslims? 

    Islam is not defamed by revelation of the fatal facts linked in previous paragraphs. Muslims are not threatened or stereotyped by revealing those facts. Silencing criticism of Islam would not protect Islam from defamation, neither would it protect Muslims; it would only remove our ability to warn our fellow citizens of approaching danger. 

education

    The malignant & malicious practice of al-Taqiyya & kitman is not education, it is indoctrination.  Islam is not a religion, neither is it peaceful nor is it great. Islam is intra-species predation.  Education will happen if intelligent and rational people read the Qur'an, hadith & Shari'ah.  What currently happens in our educational & religious institutions is indoctrination.

concrete details

    I have prepared two tables comparing the defamation & stereotyping memes. The tables are complemented by relevant quotes from the Secretaries General of the OIC and UN, followed by evidence to further clarify the issue. Bold, blue, underlined text is hyperlinked to source documents.

defamation	stereotyping
Muhammad had coitus with a nine year old girl.	Muhammad had coitus with a nine year old girl.
God would never select an unrepentant sinner as his final prophet.	Muslims tend toward pedophilia because Muhammad is their role model.

Regardless of which standard of conduct is adopted, stating the fact revealed by Aisha, that she was nine years old when Moe consummated their marriage, will be criminalized and condemned. 

defamation	stereotyping	no religion should be equated with terrorism
I will cast terror to strike terror Allah cast terror You are more awful as a fear victorious with terror	I will cast terror to strike terror Allah cast terror You are more awful as a fear victorious with terro	I will cast terror to strike terror Allah cast terror You are more awful as a fear victorious with terro
Islamic doctrines incite terrorism.	Muslims are terrorists because they emulate Moe.	Islam = terrorism.

    No  matter how you slice it; whichever protocol  they follow, truthful statements about Islam must be outlawed and condemned.  Defamation || negative stereotyping is a distinction without a difference.

concrete examples

    In this quote from a speech to the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu implies that  Geert Wilders' Fitna and the Danish Cartoons incite religious hatred & violence.

It is clearly established that international law and in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966 forbids any incitement to religious hatred. Article 20 of this Covenant stipulates that “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” Despite this clear stipulation, the Attorney General of Denmark failed to see in the infamous Danish Cartoons issues on Prophet Mohamed, any incitement to hatred on bases of religion or belief. The same authority in the Netherlands did the same thing in the case of the film Fitna, produced by a Member of Dutch Parliament. Such negative or indifferent attitudes adopted by officials in certain Western countries which seem to condone acts of an Islamophobic nature, can only lead to legitimizing Islamophobia and enhancing discrimination against Muslims and exposing their well-being and safety to danger. [Speech 0f His Excellency Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General 0f the Organisation 0f the Islamic conference, at Columbia University 21/09/2008]

    Ban Ki-moon also condemned Fitna.

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

incitement ? 

Fitna

 Fitna juxtaposes violent Qur'an verses and hadith with the rabid hate speech & incitement of several Imams and the resulting terrorism & riots. Fitna does not incite, it exposes incitement.

Motoons

    The Motoons depict Moe as a terrorist.  They are humorous; they do not exhort or incite Kuffar to assault Muslims. Moe died before the invention of gun powder, but he was a terrorist by his own admission, having declared that he was "made victorious with terror". He deliberately built a reputation for egregious barbarian rapine so as to terrify his intended victims, rendering them disorganized and effectively defenseless.

Quran burning

    Pastor Terry Jones planned to hold a Qur'an burning 09/11/10. He chickened out, but in March of '11, he held a four hour mock trial of the Qur'an with Arabic speaking experts on both sides of the debate and, having found the Qur'an guilty of inciting violence, burned it. 

    Muslims in Pakistan, on exiting from Jumah Salat, rioted, resulting in several deaths and considerable property damage. Pastor Jones did not incite violence, the Pakistani Imams incited violence in their rabid rants at Friday prayer services.

Ihsanoglu's jaundiced view

The publication of offensive cartoons of the Prophet six years ago that sparked outrage across the Muslim world, the publicity around the film Fitna and the more recent Qur’an burnings represent incidents of incitement to hatred that fuel an atmosphere of dangerous mutual suspicion. Freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility. At the same time, violent reactions to provocations are also irresponsible and uncivilised and we condemn them unequivocally.[http://71.18.253.18/en/topic_details.asp?tID=239]

We have to be sure about what constitutes criticism but not incitement to hatred. For example, when somebody calls for burning of our holy book Qur`an, can it be considered as mere criticism? [http://71.18.253.18/en/topic_details.asp?tID=39]

The most recent and unfortunate in the series of such events was the announcement
pertaining to Bum a Koran Day. It was highly provocative towards the religious sentiments
of Muslims everywhere in the world and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
[Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's speech to the HRC Session 15.]

legal foundation

    Moe ordered the murder of his critics; an example to be emulated.

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka'b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka'b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka'b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad b. Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu 'Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except 'Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na'ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.

Shari'ah

    Reliance of the Traveller, O11.10  lists five acts which break the treaty of protection exposing a Dhimmi to execution. This is the fifth item in that list: "or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam."  What is impermissible to mention? O8.7 contains a list of 20 items including: "to revile Allah or His messenger ", "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 ", "to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat",  "to deny any verse of the Koran ", and "to revile the religion of Islam".

    In reality, the OIC seeks, through the UN, to impose Islamic blasphemy law on us, denying our right to warn our fellow citizens of the existential threat Islam poses to our lives, liberties & prosperity.   We were not stupid enough to outlaw criticism of Communism during the cold war, why should we outlaw criticism of Islam?

Sphere: Related Content

Defamation of Islam: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

While USCIRF, Human Rights First and Christian news media dance around their bonfires emitting victory whoops, those with more common sense analyze the resolution and wait for the backfire.  I bring you tidings of the first backfire from International Islamic News agency  . [Emphasis added.]

Informed sources in the OIC General Secretariat in Jeddah stated clarified that the Islamic Group, represented in the OIC, in international fora did not back down from its position, pointing out that the Western countries, which lost all rounds of voting on the previous resolution on anti-defamation of religions, has made a major concession by accepting the new version of the resolution which aims to the same goals of promoting tolerance, non-discrimination and violence based on religion, which is exactly what the OIC is seeking in order to provide a decent living for Muslim communities in the West.

    The OIC did not back down, it was Western Civilization that lost the previous votes and made a major concession.  The new resolution maintains the  same goals as its predecessors.
    
    Return to  http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/Draft_Resolution_Defamation_Religions.pdf, which passed in the HRC last year and study ¶14, 15 & 16.  Exactly what are they demanding?  For those lacking the patience & diligence to do the research, here is my blog post detailing it: Defamation of Religions UNHRC March 25 ’10. The tactical objective of the series of resolutions is national & international legislation criminalizing all questioning and criticism of Islam. 

The sources pointed out that the West’s acceptance of the new resolution reflects an implied admission of a problem already exist within their communities.

    That is a clear restatement of the obvious; there was no need to say it. 

...to put an end to the campaign of hostility to Islam, better known in the west as Islamophobia.

Can you obtain a clue from Allah's word?  From Moe's word??  From Islamic law???

• 2:190. And fight in the Way of Allâh those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. [This Verse is the first one that was revealed in connection with Jihâd, but it was supplemented by another (V.9:36)]. 
• 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. 
  • Sahih Muslim 19.4294 ...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...
  • Al-Hedaya Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1, Page 141: The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the sacred writings which are generally received to this effect.
    • This marginal note found on page 140 sums it up nicely: "War must be carried on against the Infidels, at all times, by some party of the Muslims. "

    What did Allah command Muslims to do?  What did Moe tell them to do?  What does Islamic law say about who initiates & perpetuates the conflict?  Our attempts at self-defense  by raising the alarm are characterized as a "campaign of hostility" but Allah's imperative to conquer us is just, righteous & peaceful.  Yeah, right.

According to the sources, the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had had invited the OIC to lead the efforts with both Washington and the European Union to draft a new resolution to ensure the foundations adopted by the previous resolution, giving a wider range of freedom of expression, but at the same time the sources confirmed that the decision (defamation of religions) has not been abandoned, and it is still valid, and can be resorted to if necessary.

    Our Secretary of State and an NGO are behind the new tactic.  Meet the new resolution, same as the old resolution.  Guess what they will introduce to the General Assembly in September. 

    While we are beset with an implacable existential foe, the best we can muster are Morons & traitors. Western Civilization is in great peril.

   

Sphere: Related Content

Coming Soon to a Courtroom near You

Citizen Warrior posted a video  about  Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff's case, also linking to a very informative  previous  article.  Wolff & Wilders are on trial in Europe, accused of  insulting & inciting hatred against Muslims.  Jail terms and heavy fines hang over their heads because they spoke openly and honestly about the damnable doctrines & practices of Islam revealed in its own canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.   Others have been persecuted  for truth in Australia, Canada, England and Scandinavia.

    In America, at present, we can not be brought up on criminal charges for revealing the demonic core of Islam because we are protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment.  But Justice Stephen Breyer has brought our umbrella of protection into doubt: "And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?"

    In the current political climate, Democrats are desperately seeking ways to squelch criticism of their policies & corruption.  Some seek to resurrect the "fairness doctrine", others look to changes in the licensing requirements for radio stations.  They need to silence Rush Limbaugh and others  who speak truth to power.

    Unfortunately, that domestic threat converges with a parallel international threat,  Bolstered by the controversy of International Burn a Qur'an Day.  The OIC and its member states have been screaming for international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.  At the opening of the 15^th  session of the  Human Rights Council, they urged "internationally oriented preventive measures to combat negative religious stereotyping
including denigration of religions"¹  and  "It is through an outright  rejection of such acts and sustained engagement at evolving norms to deal with them that we would prevail against the extremists who are out to rock the very foundations of peaceful coexistence."²

    Two phrases in that last quote need elaboration.  "such acts" is a direct reference to International Burn a Qur'an Day but it expands to encompass all questioning & criticism of Islam.  "Evolving norms to deal with them"  may be wrongly assumed to refer to the annual Combating Defamation... resolutions but it has a more sinister reference.  Few beyond the ivory tower heights of international human rights NGOs are aware of this threat to our precious liberty.

    The HRC  appointed an ad hoc committee  to explore and elaborate "complementary international standards"³.  The committee's lofty title and charge tell us nothing  useful.  It is only by scratching beneath the surface that we discover  their mission: to write a binding protocol to ICERD which will give the force of international law to the defamation resolutions.  

    By encoding the content of the resolutions ⁴ into a protocol attached to ICERD⁵, they will be made enforcible by the World Court.  Signatories will be required by international law to legislate and enforce acts prohibiting criticism of Islam.  

    Steve Malzberg had a masterful rant on the subject of "hate speech" laws in the opening hour of his September 13 radio show.

..."Even Republicans-Even the great Peter King, Congressman-said that 'Terry Jones is putting our troops at risk; I agree with General Petraeus'  blah blah blah. ladies and gentlemen, if our freedom of speech can be seen as putting our troops at risk, then our freedom of speech is going away.  Make no mistake about that--our freedom of speech is going away.  In Canada, you can't say anything that would offend a group, like Muslims, for instance, that they might consider offensive, oh gee, they call it hate speech. Ya can't say it. ...

    Who is to blame for the escalating violence over the Qur'an burning, is it the Pastor himself, is it the Obama Administration or is it the media? I said: common, you left out choice D, which is the correct choice, where it it? Those were the choices, ladies and gentlemen, A, B & C.  The correct choice is .... the people responsible for the threat of violence are the scumbag terrorists. Duh.  Don't you see how this makes Terry Jones's point?  When he says that there's something wrong with portions of Islam?  Do you see where we've progressed to or digressed to, on this issue?  You can't burn a Qur'an, you can't incite the poor terrorists, you can't do something that will give Usama bin Ladin a recruiting poster, even if it is protected by freedom of speech; the First Amendment, you can't do it; we'll send the FBI to your church,  we'll take files out, we'll have somebody close down/ whoever runs your web  site/ your provider close it down, which is what happened. The FBI came, the provider said 'oh, you violated such and such a rule-no more web site for the church  ' . And they read him the riot act. God knows what they told him.  Who knows how they threatened him to get him to stop?  God spoke to him and told him not to do it.  Of course, first he said he had a deal 'the mosque will not be built there', yeah right, ... but don't you for one minute think that this is not the beginning of the end of the United States of America as you know it.

    Remember after 9/11 some started saying well, ... how is this different from the Imam himself who said that we were 'accesory to 9/11, and Usama
bin ladin was made in the united states, that we have Muslim blood on our hands'  ?  So shat do you expect, how is this different from Rev. Wright; 'the chickens have come home to roost.' 'cuz we support the Israelies & dropped bombs on Hiroshima? How is this different than what they're saying, when you tell a Pastor 'if you burn that book, the terrorists are going to strike and its your fault', how is it different than what Reverend  Wright and Imam Rauf and the rest of the skunks say about 9/11 and about this country deserving it ?  And whose to blame for 9/11; I always thought it was the terrorists, but  if you follow Barack Hussein Obama's logic; Hillary Clinton's logic' General Petraeus's logic; Defense Secretary Gates's logic and I'm sorry to say, just about everybody I've heard from's logic  if he';d burned the Qur'an and something had happened, it'd be his fault. How is that?

    Now, next in line will be, and we've already heard it,   We've heard it from the Imam: he can't move the mosque  from where he wants to build it; absolutely not, do you know why?   he can't do it ('Our national security now hinges on how we do this and how we speak about it and what we do . It is important now for us to raise the bar...
if we move the radicals have  shaped the discourse --the radicals have shaped the discourse on both sides and those of  us who are moderates on both sides ..')...

What will they demand next?  People like me, speaking up; 'you're inflaming the terrorists'; its our fault. Its terry Jones's fault, its the people who want the mosque moved's fault .  Its my fault, don't you get it?  Just like  its the U.S. Government's fault that 9/11 happened,
And now we, not me, are starting to accept it in this country.

Well, you'd better not burn the Qur'an, don't want to inflame the terrorists, well we don't do anything to  upset them-screw'em!    What the Hell is going on here?  

    Wolff & Wilders are on trial for "hate speech"  It is assumed  by LibTards that revealing the core doctrines & practices of Islam  inculcate hatred & incite violence. while in reality, the hatred is inculcated and the violence incited by the Qur'an, hadith, Sira & kutbah based upon them, preached in every mosque  every Friday afternoon.

    View Fitna. You saw the Qur'an, in Arabic and English. You heard it recited. You saw the Imam's preaching it. You saw the rioting, death and destruction which result.  Which is hate speech:  the sanctification & mandate of genocidal conquest or exposing it to the world?   The Imams who preach from that accursed book should be in the dock, not Geert Wilders.  

    This is what the Secretary General of the U.N. said about that 17 minute video.

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 right of  free expression is at stake; there is ample justification for Fitna; none for the Qur'an.  Ban  ki-Moon is guilty of inverting morality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhgkN42uAJQ&feature=player_embedded



    Wilders & Wolff are being tried under existing national hate speech legislation.  If the OIC prevails in its pursuit of tyranny, our nation will emulate those laws and our liberty will be lost forever.

    The annual resolutions are getting all the press. Who is paying attention to the activity of the Ad Hoc Cmte. which  presents the real threat?  The OIC outnumbers us and can out vote us.  We can not prevail by lobbying efforts. We can not prevail with bland, inoffensive petitions  calling for the defeat of impotent resolutions.  We need to raise the  political/public relations cost of  the OIC's mission to enslave us.  We need to use their own methods against them.

    Who has the SISU to reveal the truth about Islam?  Who will point out the fact that Islam's Qur'an & Sunnah are egregious static violations of existing human rights covenants?

ICERD. [Emphasis added.]

Article 4

States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:
(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;
(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;
(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.

States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin,

ICCPR

Article 20

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

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

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.

2:91. And when it is said to them (the Jews), "Believe in what Allâh has sent down," they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us." And they disbelieve in that which came after it, while it is the truth confirming what is with them. Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him to them): "Why then have you killed the Prophets of Allâh aforetime, if you indeed have been believers?" 
98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur'ân and Prophet Muhammad  from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.
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!

Tabari IX:69 "Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah's helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in Allah's Cause. Killing him is a small matter to us." [Quoted by Craig Winn.]

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article 3

The following acts shall be punishable:

• (a) Genocide;
• (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
• (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
• (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
• (e) Complicity in genocide.

8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

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.

    ICCPR, ICERD & CPPCG require that Islam and its canon of scripture & tradition be condemned and proscribed by law.  Who will enforce those provisions?  They want to amend ICERD to use against us while it already condemns them!   How shall we deal with those arrogant violators of human rights?  Hoist them on their own petard!  Sign, publicized & promote the International Qur'an  Petition.  You can copy the full, html format petition, complete with  links to the evidence and a link to the signature page and paste it into an email, with an exhortation to sign and forward it.

---

1. Statement of   The OIC Secretary General His Excellency Prf. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu  Before the 15^th  Session of the Human Rights Council
   16 Sept. 2010  http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/8864sggenevaoic.pdf
2. ibid
3. The blog posts listed here contain quotes from & links to the few available documents related to the cmte. 
• Syria Spews al-Taqeyya 04/13/10 On April 12, 2010, Syria’s U.N. Ambassador addressed the 14^th session  of the  Ad Hoc Committee on Measures to eliminate international terrorism on behalf of the OIC.  I have selected three crucial excerpts from his prepared remarks.
•  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.
• Letter from OIC to Ad Hoc Committee 11/13/09  This is about the drive to criminalize criticism of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Committee Leaves Work Unfinished  Our freedom of expression is almost safe until their next session. 10/30/09
• 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.
• AdHoc Committee: African Submission  08/03/09  Detailed analysis of the Africa group's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• AdHoc Cmte USA Submission  08/03/09 This nation is governed by irrational idiots & traitors. Read it and weep.
• AdHoc 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.
4. Combating defamation of religions
• A/HRC/RES/13/16  
• Defamation of Religions UNHRC March 25 ’10
• A/RES/64/164
• Combating Defamation of Religions: the Substance
5. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

Sphere: Related Content

Annual Islamophobia Report #3

Organization of the Islamic Conference: Accommodating Sharia  Gates of Vienna 27 July 2010, By Baron Bodissey; found in Europe News, via Google Alert.

        That excellent article is centered on the 74 page  3rd OIC observatory report on Islamophobia (May 2009 to April 2010  which covers the period from May '09 to April '10.

    General Secretary Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's Forward, at the end of page 5,  provides the first veiled threat.

Distortion of Islam geared towards denigrating and dehumanizing Muslims insults the deep
seated religious feelings and violates their fundamental rights and dignity thus threatening the
multicultural fabric of the societies. Such stereotyping leads to discrimination and violence
defying justification on both political as well as economic grounds. It poses grave and
multidimensional challenges to global as well as regional peace, security and stability. The
situation merits a concerted effort on the part of the international community to evolve norms
that would underwrite, promote and protect interfaith and inter-communal understanding,
respect and harmony.

    Note the loaded language with which the first sentence begins. "Distortion of Islam geared towards denigrating and dehumanizing Muslims" .  Turn back momentarily to the first paragraph:  where disturbing events are listed.

the continuing saga of insulting and provocative publications like the reprinting of the cartoons,

How do the Motoons distort Islam? They depicted Moe as a terrorist; does that distort Islam?  Allah said "I will cast terror".  Allah cast terror, resulting in death, enslavement and dispossession.  Moe said "I have been made victorious with terror".  The motoons depict Moe as bomb carrying a terrorist.  He never carried a bomb, because explosives were invented after his death.  But he was, by his own admission, a terorist. If he had no bombs, how did Moe terrorize?  By his demon, and his spear; he built a terrible reputation. Lets take a brief Qur'anic review.  [Emphasis added.]

8:12. ...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. ... 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...

59:2. ... Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).

59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allah - Islamic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Bani An-Nadir) breasts than Allah. ...

 
The message of the Motoons, though exaggerated, as most editorial cartoons are, is essentially true: Moe was a terrorist; terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam.  The Motoons do not distort Islam, they reflect the technological changes of the last 1387 years.

    Are the Motoons "geared towards denigrating and dehumanizing Muslims"?  No, they only depict terrorists as the evil entities they are.  If Muslims  feel denigrated and dehumanized, it is only because they are in sympathy with the terrorists who obey Allah and emulate his Profit.

    How does accurately depicting Moe as a terrorist violate the rights and dignity of Muslims?  Is there a right to be shielded from criticism of their superstition? What of our dignity and rights which are entirely denied by Islam? Their tender religious sensibilities are hurt.  What of the religious sensibilities of Christians?   The Qur'an denies Christ's paternity, divinity, crucifixion, death & resurrection besides co-opting Christ as a genocidal warlord. How is it permissible  to denigrate & defame our Lord, but punishable by law to  attach the terrorist label to Moe?

    The loaded language continues, carried over from recent U.N. resolutions.
"Such stereotyping leads to discrimination and violence defying justification on both political as well as economic grounds."

Strongly condemns all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, including on the basis of religion or belief, and urges all States to apply and, where applicable, reinforce existing laws when such xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in order to eradicate impunity for those who commit xenophobic and racist acts;

    What is the connection between exposing the evil doctrines of Islam and  violence?  Did the Motoons suggest that Muslims should be assaulted ?  Did the video Fitna  include incitement to violence other than that in the Qur'an and the ravings of the Imams depicted therein?  Who actually shot & stabbed people and burned buildings in riots stirred up in the Mosques at Juma Salat?

  Now we have wended our way to the thinly veiled threat. " It poses grave and multidimensional challenges to global as well as regional peace," What really poses a challenge to peace?  The true threat to peace flows from the Qur'an's injunctions to permanent warfare, contained in 8:39 & 9:29.  It is ratified by Moe's declaration that he was "commanded to fight".  It is codified in Shari'ah:  "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians :..., "The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim"... .

    The last sentence in that paragraph from the forward exposes the OIC's tactical objective: "The situation merits a concerted effort on the part of the international community to evolve norms that would underwrite, promote and protect interfaith and inter-communal understanding, respect and harmony."
They demand, in the UNHRC, its Ad Hoc Committee on Elaboration of Contemporary Standards and the General Assembly, that all criticism of Islam be criminalized.  Each year they ram through two non binding resolutions condemning "defamation of religions". In November, the committee meets again to work on a legally binding protocol to ICERD.

    Existing human rights covenants have unenforced provisions which require that Islam be proscribed by law because its canon of scripture  incites war and genocide besides violating the right to life.  It is up to us to remind the World Court of its duty to enforce those provisions.  I urge you to sign, promote and publicize the  International Qur'an Petition.  That petition is all that stands between our liberties and the OIC .  We must use it!

    On page ten, in the context of the executive summary, they state their vision and recommendations.  Three points in their nine point list require close attention.

Western countries should prohibit by law, publishing or uttering of matters that grossly
abuse or insult matters held sacred by any religion or stereotype its followers.
Discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, and religion should also be prohibited by
law;

That is a repetition of the demand that all criticism of Islam be outlawed.  If we can not name and shame the enemy which attacked  us and continues to threaten further attacks,  then, in the words of George Washington:   “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

Hate crimes should be defined broadly and the information deficit must be addressed;

Broadly defined legislation is the worst enemy of  liberty.  That is an Islamic attempt to establish their tyranny.

Younger generations should be provided with educational programs that would foster
tolerance, understanding and respect to “the other”;

If any sentient person understands Islam, he will not tolerate it. The OIC demands that our children be indoctrinated with Islamic hagiography to render them intellectually defenseless.  That is the opposite of education, it is a tool of enslavement.

Sphere: Related Content

Provocative Quotes from OIC

One of my Google Alerts triggered on a post at tree hugger. The article consisted of a list of OIC statements whose source was listed as CNS News.
When I followed the link, I found an article dated May 24 and titled "Islamic Nations Praise Obama’s Outreach and U.S. Plans to Close ‘Islamophobia Prison’ at Guantanamo".

It appears that the source of the guff is the OIC's annual Islamophobia Report. I confess that I had only skimmed it, without giving it close attention. The report is a 74 page pdf file.

The first provocative quote comes from page 27 of the report.

Defamation of Islam as well as personalities and symbols sacred to Islam and Muslims as well as other religions is a matter of grave concern to the OIC.

As if they are poised on the edge of the grave, ready to fall in. Muslim rulers are concerned about criticism of Islam because they know that that the cult is false, contrived for a mercenary purpose, contrary to right religion, logic and human rights. If Islam is fully exposed, resulting in mass apostasy, their satrapies and their lives would be at risk.

Gratuitous inclusion of personalities sacred to other religions adds immeasurably to the insult. Islam denies the paternity, deity, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To cap it off, Islam co-opts Jesus as a genocidal warlord who will "fight the people for the cause of Islam". When Islam points a finger at their critics, four fingers point back at Islam.

On page 27, they expose their intentions.

OIC believes that the International Human Rights Law is not static but evolutionary in nature.
The existing international legal infrastructure, therefore, needs to be evaluated and evolved in
the interest of combating Islamophobia and defamation of all religions in an effective manner.

How can immunity from criticism for Islam be a human right? Human rights apply to individuals, not to groups; not to ideologies. Phobia implies irrational fear. Is it irrational to fear a war cult that has slaughtered 270*10⁶ people in the last 1387 years?

The OIC also appeals to argumentum ad numerum, a logical fallacy.

The safe-passage of the resolution, voted by a majority of states beyond the OIC membership, at each of the three venues
lends international legitimacy to the concept of defamation of religions.

Examine the recent trend in HRC votes on the annual resolutions. If the number of votes conferred legitimacy, it would seem to be declining.



Taking on Islamophobia from another angle, they corrupt our language.

It is indeed a contemporary form of racism whereby the faith and beliefs of
Muslims are denigrated and demonized with all that it entails in terms of adverse impact on
their dignity and identity.

Islam is a war cult, a predatory way of life, not a race. It originated in Arabia, but was spread by the sword into Africa, Asia and Europe. Our objection to Islam is not based on race, it is based on Islam's assertion of a divine right and mandate to rape, pillage, plunder and enslave us until we join them. For the doubters & dissenters, I offer a piece of evidence similar to the barbarian response to Jefferson & Adams when they asked by what right the Barbary Pirates attacked us.

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." Sahih Bukhari 4.53.386

Take a look at what they say on page 15 about our government's policy.

At the policy level – with more substantive implications in terms of the international discourse
on combating Islamophobia – the criticism leveled by the US Administration on the OIC
proposed legally binding instrument was not in line with the expectations raised by promise of
engagement in the Cairo speech by President Obama. In October 26, 2009 the U.S. State
Department released its Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. It was critical of what
it said were international efforts to limit free speech in the name of combating defamation of
religion, criticizing the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for pushing such antidefamation
measures in U.N. bodies. It said the broad anti-defamation measures being sought by
the OIC would have the effect of curbing debate about religious issues and should be discarded
in favor of outreach and government defense of religious freedom and free speech. In its
Executive Summary10, the Report stated: “…the wide spectrum of efforts to undermine the right to
religious freedom extends to multilateral, regional, and global fora. For instance, over the past
decade, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)…has worked through the United Nations
(UN) to advance the concept of "defamation of religions"…the United States…do not agree with the
"defamation of religions" concept because it is inconsistent with the freedoms of religion and
expression.”

A positive response by the US to the OIC’s call for engagement towards evaluating and evolving
norms towards combating Islamophobia – with particular reference to defamation of religions –
would constitute a positive step forward in terms of backing President Obama’s words with
action.

It appears that President Obama's obeisance created false expectations. Our Constitution forbids the making of any law abridging the freedom of speech. The reason for that amendment should be obvious to everyone. Free speech is necessary to preserve freedom. We must be able to criticize corrupt or ineffective government. We must be free to criticize proposed legislation. We must also be free to identify and discuss threats to our lives and liberties.

Islam is a real, proximate and continuing existential threat. An Islamic attack on our soil nine years ago killed 3000 people and caused billions of dollars in economic loss. Because of our First Amendment, we can not be arrested, fined and imprisoned for revealing the damnable doctrines of Islam. We need to preserve our First Amendment rights.

Sphere: Related Content