No Compulsion in Religion & Defamation from MPAC

http://www.mpac.org/assets/docs/publications/MPAC-defamations-of-religion.pdf

   
MPAC takes a legalistic & libertarian tack against blasphemy laws, asserting that the Qur'an supports open debate, not compulsion.  Lets look a little deeper, below the surface of a few crucial citations.  [Links added to quotes.]

Let there be no compulsion in religion, the truth stands out clear from error… (2:256)

 Say: O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that
which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye
worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine (109:1-6)

He was not permitted to force people to believe. (17:53-54; 88:21-22)

If the Prophet was commanded directly by God to just advise and persuade, who are we as ordinary
human beings to claim a higher mantle of authority and impose our beliefs on others?

2:256 Tafsir Ibn Kathir  mentions relation to the Ansar, whose children were among the Banu an-Nadir who were exiled from Medina. Unfortunately, Ibn Kathir leaves the story open ended, I suspect that there was an editing error somewhere along the way.  Other tafsirs complete the story and add more details.

    Certain women among the Ansar, whose sons died in infancy would swear to raise one who lived as a Jew.  Evidently they farmed their surviving sons out to wet nurses among the Banu an-Nadir.   When Moe drove the Banu an-nadir from their fortifified settlements [59:2, The End that Bani An-Nadir suffered] some of the Answar offspring opted to remain among the exiled Jews. Their mothers ran complaining to Moe, who revealed 2:256 to fit the occasion.  The story finds its fullest explication in these tafsirs:

• Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi
• Tafsir Al-Mizan [Select Surah 2 and enter 256 in the text box.]

    Mufti Shafi Usmani brings in a related argument not raised by the others in this context: the relationship between non compulsion and jihad, holding that the two are not in conflict. 

Keeping this verse in view, some people raise objections. They say
this verse tells us that there is no compulsion in faith, although the
teaching of jihad and qital (fighting) in Islam appears contrary to this
principle.
Looking at this a little carefully, we can find out that the objection
is not valid, since the teaching of jihad and qital in Islam is not to
coerce people into accepting Faith. Had it been so, why would there be
Islamic injunctions of jizyah to provide an umbrella of security for
kuffar (disbelievers) which protects their life, property and honour? [...]

It is for this reason that Allah Almighty has ordained that the
fasad created by these people should be removed by jihiid and qitl. So,
killing such people is like the killing of serpents, scorpions and their
harmful likes.

   
Usmani asserts that jihad is for the purpose of eradicating people who cause fitna, not about compelling them to convert to Islam. Note that he claims that jijya provides security for kuffar, protecting their life and property.  From whom does jizya protect them?  I have three clues for you, and will allow you to draw your own conclusion.

• These people have been informed of the orders about Jiziya. If you desire that there should be peace and security in the world, obey Allah and His Prophet. Thereafter none in Arabia and Ajam (Iran) shall dare cast an evil eye on you. But the rights of Allah and His Prophet can at no time be waived.

  If you do not accept these terms and set them aside, I do not need your presents and gifts. In that case, I shall have to wage war (to establish peace and security). Its result would be that the big ones shall be killed in war and the commoners shall be taken prisoners. [Letter to the rulers of Aqaba]

• [...]And whoever says: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' saves his wealth and his life from me[...] [Sahih Bukhari 9.92.388]
• Capitation tax is to be imposed  upon  Kitabees, because  this is mentioned in the Koran: and it is in the same manner to be imposed upon Majoosees, as the prophet imposed capitation-tax upon Majoosees.-- Capitation-tax is also to be imposed upon the idolaters of ajim (Persia) this is contrary to the opinion of Shafii, for he argues that destruction is incurred by all infidels; but the legality of abstaining from it, in sconsideration of a capitation-tax, with respect to Kitabees, is known from the word of the Koran, and with respect  to Majoosees, from the traditions; any others, therefore,  than those, (namely idolaters,) remain subject to the original penalty, which is destruction. [Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter VIII, Page 212]

    In the matter of Surah Al-Kaafiroon, Tafsir Ibn Kathir informs us that the surah was revealed about Kafirs who challenged Moe to swap religions for a year. Rather than a statement of tolerance, it is a statement of rejection and immunity from their shirk.  [He commanded His Messenger to disavow himself from their religion completely]   Tafsir al-tustari informs us that Surah 109 was abrogated by 9:5; Tafsir al-Jalalayn & Tafsir Ibn Abbas cuncurr, citing   the "command to wage war" and "verses of fighting" respectively.

    Surah Al-Kaafiroon  was # 18 in seqeuence of revelation , Surah Al-Baqarah was # 87, both are abrogated by conflicting  ayat in Surah At-Taubah which was next to last in revelation. 

    Does Surah Al-Isra' 53-54 forbid compulsion?  Perhaps we should examine the context.

17:53. And say to My slaves (i.e. the true believers of Islâmic Monotheism) that they should (only) say those words that are the best. (Because) Shaitân (Satan) verily, sows disagreements among them. Surely, Shaitân (Satan) is to man a plain enemy.

17:54. Your Lord knows you best, if He will, He will have mercy on you, or if He will, He will punish you. And We have not sent you (O Muhammad ) as a guardian over them.

17:55. And your Lord knows best all who are in the heavens and the earth. And indeed, We have preferred some of the Prophets above others, and to Dawûd (David) We gave the Zabûr (Psalms).

17:56. Say (O Muhammad ): "Call unto those besides Him whom you pretend [to be gods like angels, Iesâ (Jesus), 'Uzair (Ezra), etc.]. They have neither the power to remove the adversity from you nor even to shift it from you to another person."

17:57. Those whom they call upon [like 'Iesa (Jesus) ­ son of Maryam (Mary), 'Uzair (Ezra), angel, etc.] desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allâh), as to which of them should be the nearest and they ['Iesa (Jesus), 'Uzair (Ezra), angels, etc.] hope for His Mercy and fear His Torment. Verily, the Torment of your Lord is something to be afraid of!

17:58. And there is not a town (population) but We shall destroy it before the Day of Resurrection, or punish it with a severe torment. That is written in the Book (of our Decrees)

    I do not see mention of compulsion or toleration in that context, but I do see a threat of destruction, before the day of judgment. Perhaps you can find something of interest in Ibn Kathir tafsir of 17:53.

    Surah Surah Al-Ghaashiyah 21-22  looks swell until we examine the context. Of course, Muslims, who accuse us of "cherry picking" are prone to engage in selectivity. 

88:21. So remind them (O Muhammad ()), you are only a one who reminds.

88:22. You are not a dictator over them.

88:23. Save the one who turns away and disbelieves

88:24. Then Allâh will punish him with the greatest punishment.

    Moe is only one who reminds, not a dictator; then comes the exception clause, which MPAC did not cite for us.  Allah will punish the disbelievers.  Of course, punishment is not coercion.  Of course, Ibn Kathir had something to say about that. [The Messenger is only charged with delivering the Message]

(You are not a Musaytir over them.) Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and others said, "You are not a dictator over them.'' This means that you cannot create faith in their hearts. Ibn Zayd said, "You are not the one who can force them to have faith.'' Imam Ahmad recorded from Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said,
(I have been commanded to fight the people until they say La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped except Allah). So if they say that, they have safeguarded their blood and wealth from me - except for what is rightfully due from it - and their reckoning is with Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.)'' Then he recited, (So remind them - you are only one who reminds. You are not a dictator over them -) This is how Muslim recorded this Hadith in his Book of Faith, and At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa'i also recorded it in their Sunans in the Books of Tafsir. This Hadith can be found in both of the Two Sahihs.

you are not a taskmaster over them (a variant reading [for musaytir] has musaytir, that is to say, [not one who has been] given authority over them) - this was [revealed] before the command to struggle [against the disbelievers]. [Tafsir al-Jalalayn]

Moe can't make us believe, but he has been commanded to wage war upon us until we recite Shahada.  That is a clue for the clueless.    Surah Al-Anfal & Surah At-Taubah contain the jihad imperatives refered to above. Because they were among the last to be revealed, they abrogate earlier verses whith which they are in conflict. [2:106 & 16:101 establish the rule of abrogation.] The jihad imperatives are  commands to fight idolaters until only Allah is worshiped and people of the book until they are subjugated & extorted. 

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.

    Those imperatives are codified in Shari'ah, best exemplified by Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9.8 & 9.9. No compulsion?  Fighting Arabian pagans until they become Muslim is not compulsion. 

O9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).

    I am not arguing with MPAC about the negative impliciations of the "defamation of religions" meme. The points raised fy Freedom House and other critics are valid, based on solid facts and logic.  I simply pointed out their practice of kitman: deception by obfuscation.   But this subject is raised in the context of two resolutions passed this year by the Human Rights Council and General Assembly. 

• A/HRC/16/L.38
• Draft resolution XVII

    The name has changed; the language has changed, but the meme has not changed. The OIC & UN have not abandoned "combating defamation of Islam".

Adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence
based on religion or belief;

¶5(f) on page 5 of Draft resolution XVII,  "Adopting measures to criminalize" is a code phrase for legislation. They are demanding passage & enforcement to establish criminal punishment for publications such as Fitna, the Motoons and this blog post. Remember, Ban Ki-Moon defined the terms for us. 

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 resolutions demand passage and enforcement of legislation to criminalize criticmsm of Islam.  Another resolution, flying below the radar, passed the GA by concensus, without a vote.  ¶10, on page 3 of Draft resolution XVIII,  emphasizes that Islam must not be equated with terrorism   Equation with terrorism fits the defamation meme, and it has not been dropped or abandoned by the UN, it lives on in a concurrent resolution.

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

    The obvious was confirmed by our own Department of State last summer when they met the OIC at Istanbul to discuss implementation of the resolution.  This quote from the Secretary of State requires a little decoding. for the meaning of "intolerance" Refer back to the quote from Ban Ki-moon. [Following quotes from OIC Journal.]

“Together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits
religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we
are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight
intolerance wherever it occurs.

    Our Ambassador to the HRC piled on.

A positive aspect of Resolution 16 /18 is that it did not
pit the principle of freedom of religion against freedom of
expression, said Ambassador Donahoe, rather it combined
them. “We believe that through free expression we are better
able to combat intolerance.”

    In response to OIC Journal query on defining what would
constitute incitement to hate, she clarified that in the US there
is a single case where freedom of expression can be restricted
or prohibited by the State, and that is when “incitement to
eminent violence”.

    In this context, she pointed out that the President, the
Secretary of State and several public officials went out on a
limb to publically condemn ‘Burn the Quran Day’ to show
that such abominable acts are not accepted. “When you have
the President, the Secretary of State and public figures jointly
condemning that, it will be more effective than throwing
that pastor in jail. I believe the same is true for the hateful
cartoons (of the Prophet). We should all be joining together
in conveying our disgust with such intolerance.”

"Intolerance" and "incitement to violence" mean: International Burn the Qur'an Day and the Motoons, just as Ban mischaracterized Fitna. 

    Allah had something to say about blasphemy. 

3:78. And verily, among them is a party who distort the Book with their tongues (as they read), so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book, and they say: "This is from Allâh," but it is not from Allâh; and they speak a lie against Allâh while they know it.

7:37. Who is more unjust than one who invents a lie against Allâh or rejects His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)? For such their appointed portion (good things of this worldly life and their period of stay therein) will reach them from the Book (of Decrees) until, when Our Messengers (the angel of death and his assistants) come to them to take their souls, they (the angels) will say: "Where are those whom you used to invoke and worship besides Allâh," they will reply, "They have vanished and deserted us." And they will bear witness against themselves, that they were disbelievers.

6:93. And who can be more unjust than he who invents a lie against Allâh, or says: "I have received inspiration," whereas he is not inspired in anything; and who says, "I will reveal the like of what Allâh has revealed." And if you could but see when the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers, etc.) are in the agonies of death, while the angels are stretching forth their hands (saying): "Deliver your souls! This day you shall be recompensed with the torment of degradation because of what you used to utter against Allâh other than the truth. And you used to reject His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) with disrespect! "

10:17. So who does more wrong than he who forges a lie against Allâh or denies His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)? Surely, the Mujrimûn (criminals, sinners, disbelievers and polytheists) will never be successful!

    Moe's reaction to criticism is instructive: he had them murdered. I direct doubters & dissenters to List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad.

 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.

   
    Killing critics of Islam is not just sunnah, it is Islamic law. I invite doubters & dissenters to examine the relevant passages of  reliance of the Traveller, the Shafi'ite manual of fiqh, to verify the fatal fact. A conquered Jew or Christian, remaining in Dar al-Islam as a Dhimmi, who "mentions something impermissible" about Islam, reverts to the status of a prisoner of war who may be killed.

• Apostasay: penalty: O8.1
• definition: O8.7
• application to Dhimmis O11.10
• penalty applied to Dhimmis: O9.14

Sphere: Related Content

Un: Eliminating International Terrorism

Eye on the UN published links to three statements to the UN's 6^th Committee on the subject of  measures to eliminate international terrorism. This post will concentrate on publishing those links, which appear below.

     In view of the recent 10^th anniversary of the Accursed Abomination and several recent foiled plots, the subject absolutely must be moved to the front burner. 

    Instead of republishing each of the statements, I will let you read them, then I will tear them apart point by point in a series of posts.  Here are the links to those pdf files. 

• http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/Kazakhstan_on_behalf_of_OIC_MEIT2011.pdf
  • China/SCO
    • http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/9708chinameit2011.pdf
  • Qatar/Arab Group
    • http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/aQatar_n_behalf_of_Arab_Group.pdf
  • Iran/Non-Aligned Group.
    
    • http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/Iran_on_behalf_of_NAM2011.pdf

    Those statements contain references to external documents, which, in turn reference others.  So that the inordinately curious may explore the issue in greather depth, I present a list of what I consider to be the most important of those references with the links I was able to find.

• General Assembly resolution 51/210
  • A/RES/51/210
  • 17 December 1996
    • http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/51/a51r210.htm
• Referenced by Qatar
  • High Level symposium on international counter-terrorism
  •  
    • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/sg_symposium.shtml
    •  
      • Chairman's Summary
      •  
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/chairman_summary_sg_symposium.pdf
      • G.A. President's Statement
      •  
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/chairman_summary_sg_symposium.pdf
      • Special Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism and Human Rights
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/sr_on_ct_and_hr_sg_symposium.pdf
      • Ban Ki-Moon
        • http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=1300
      • U.S. Eric Holder
        • http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2011/172772.htm
      • Bangladesh
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/bangladesh.pdf
      • Bosnia and Herzegovina
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/bosnia_and_herzegovina_sg_symposium...
      • Egypt
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/egypt.pdf
      • European Union
        • H.E. Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice president of the Commission
          • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/EU_sg_symposium.pdf
      • Israel
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/israel.pdf
      • NATO
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/NATO_sg_symposium.pdf
      • Pakistan
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/pakistan_sg_symposium.pdf
• http://www.un.org/terrorism/
  • General Assembly resolution 46/51
  •  
    • http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-46-51.pdf
  • #:OIC/SUMMIT-11/2008/FC/Final)
  •  
    • http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/cache/offonce/pid/11988;jsessionid=7C704076BEC37FF0ACF84E16780686A4
  • OIC Group Resolution No. 20137-POL
  • draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism
  •  
    • http://cns.miis.edu/inventory/pdfs/intlterr.pdf
  • (GA resolution 601288
  •  
    • http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-60-288.pdf

Sphere: Related Content

Combating Defamation of Religions

The current incarnation of the resolution demanding international imposition of Islam's blasphemy laws is A/C.3/65/L.46. Combating defamation of religions,
dated October 28 '10.  Like its predecessors, the draft resolution begins with references to previous resolutions and related documents, then it gets down to the serious business of reaffirming, welcoming,  underlining and expressing serious concern.   Lets  examine selected  lumps from the septic tank.

Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence, Stressing also the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, Reaffirming that discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes a violation of human rights and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter,

Defamation usually applies to individuals, see the first terms in a definition search.

• a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions
• aspersion: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Perhaps we can find some relevant detail.

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

 

[...] which clearly confirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group, [...]

Almost everyone more than twelve years old should recall immediately what they are kvetching about: the Motoons & Fitna.  The Motoons depict Moe as a terrorist. Is that defamatory?  He died in 632, prior to the invention of gunpowder, so he never had a bomb in his turban.  But he was a self-confessed terrorist.

• Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.  [Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331]
• I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy) [Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220]

The Motoons contained exaggeration, but they also contained the element of truth necessary to effective humor. They did not calumniate or defame Moe.

    Fitna juxtaposed the Qur'an with scenes  of Imams inciting the believers to jihad, followed by scenes of slaughter. Fitna connects the dots, demonstrating cause and effect.  It is true, and therefore not defamatory.  

    In the matter of terrorism: Moe claimed victory through terror. Allah said that he would cast terror, commanded the Muslims to strike off necks and fingers, then  reported that he cast terror and its consequences.[Emphasis added for clarity.]

• 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers). 
• 8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes." 
• 8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson. 
• 8:60.  Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. 
• 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

  33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things. 

• 59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see). 
• 59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh). 

Terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam.  Pointing out that fact is not defamatory, it is truthful.  

Noting with concern that defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights, and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the resulting discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions

They are alarmed that our government does not silence our criticism of Islam.  The First Amendment gives me a right to expose Islam's rotten core without fear of the federal government.

Underlining the important role of education in the promotion of tolerance, which involves acceptance by the public of, and its respect for, diversity, including with regard to religious expression, and underlining also the fact that education should contribute in a meaningful way to promoting tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief,

They demand that our schools be co-opted to indoctrinate our children with false praises of Islam so that they will tolerate the intolerable. 

Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still evident in the world;

That sentence is redundant, it simply restates the complaint about exposing the doctrines & practices of Islam.  It is the second item in a 28 item enumerated list. The third item follows suit, adding two new elements.

Strongly deplores all acts of psychological and physical violence and assaults, and incitement thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, and such acts directed against their businesses, properties, cultural centres and places of worship, as well as the targeting and desecration of holy books, holy sites and religious symbols and venerated personalities of all religions;

If you are so concerned about incitement to violence, why don't you ban the Qur'an, which contains imperatives to wage war on Christians? Are you unable to make the connection between 9:39 & 9:123 with attacks on churches in Egypt, Iraq,Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan & Indonesia? 

    Here are the novel elements:

• desecration of holy books
• venerated personalities

Of course, they are not kvetching about terrorists who occupied the Church of the Nativity, who practiced istinja  with pages torn from the Bible. [In the link, Daniel Pipes reveals the existence of a fatwa permitting the practice.] Neither are they kvetching about burning Bibles. The reference is specific to International Burn a Qur'an Day. 
   
    And the venerated personality is Moe, who really was a terrorist, not Jesus Christ, whose paternity, divinity, crucifixion, death & resurrection are denied by the Qur'an and who is co-opted by Islam as a genocidal warlord.   The Qur'ans torn and partially burned in New York and torn in Washington D.C. Sept. 11 were English translations, which are not considered sacred or authentic by Islam. 

Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion, as well as the targeting and desecration of holy books, holy sites and religious symbols and venerated personalities of all religions;

Their definition of incitement is so loose that it encompasses every possible criticism of Islam. Recall what Secy. Gen. Ban Ki-moon said about 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.”

The hate speech in Fitna flows from the lips of Imams. The incitement flows from their lips and from the Qur'an.

Reaffirms that general recommendation XV (42) of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,14 in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

I have a few examples for your consideration.

• 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.
• 2:159. Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences and the guidance, which We have sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allâh and cursed by the cursers. 
• 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.

 

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

That is the same tired boiler plate demand for legislation criminalizing criticism of Islam. Bear in mind what Ban said about Fitna.  Islam contumaciously demands that it be shielded from all questioning and criticism.  Islam demands that it and it alone be allowed to hurl curses while being shielded from return fire.

Sphere: Related Content

Netanyahu challenges the U.N.

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Atlas Shrugs for posting four videos and a transcript of  P.M. Netanyahu's address to the General Assembly.  I find it to be considerably shorter and more honest  than  President Obama's address.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust.  It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.  Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth.

Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants.  Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

    Netanyahu proceeds to present evidence of the  Holocaust, and Atlas provides links to it.  But outside of  one or two biblical references, no evidence of the Jew's long term  connection to the land.   But the assault on truth goes far beyond the murder of six million, it includes denial of Jewish history and connection to the Levant.   I wish he had developed the full story rather than just one half of it.

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium.  To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you.  You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame?  Have you no decency? 

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace!  What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! 

    I find that to be an understated but much  deserved  swipe  at the allies & associates of  Ahmadinejad.  It just lacks the   profanity require for proper emphasis.

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews.  You're wrong.  History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

    That could use some elaboration. Moe began with razia on camel caravans, graduated to ghazwat on local Jewish settlements and  expanded to attack neighboring kingdoms.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. 

    Fueled by petroleum, driven by the Qur'an & hadith.  But 1979 was not its first manifestation.  Pogroms against levantine Jews began much earlier and there was great slaughter of Hindus when Islam split India.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time.   And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after a horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind.

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

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

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood?

Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

        Who will bell the cat?  Who can destroy Iran's centrifuges without being branded an aggressor?   The Security Council only acts by consensus; two of its permanent members have extensive financial ties to Iran.  China & Russia will veto any  realistic strategy.  If Iran will be prevented from  obtaining nukes, Israel must act forcefully, on her own initiative, before the final red line is crossed.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. 

Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims.  That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities.   Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks.

We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.
     
In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza.  It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. 

We didn't get peace.  Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv.   Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare.

You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.
 
Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond.  But how should we have responded? 

Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population.  It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II.  

During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties.   Israel chose to respond differently.  Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances.

Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.  We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave.

Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.   Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. 

A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

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

       Its the double standard.  Netanyahu pointed it out and shined a light on it, but nobody was paying attention.  The camel is in the tent, filling it with excrement. 

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

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

What legitimacy?  What self-defense? 

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

Israel justly defended itself against terror.  This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments.   Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? 

We must know the answer to that question now.   Now and not later.  Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow.

    Netanyahu   wisely  made the case for kissing off the "peace talks" if the UN  follows through with their inversion of justice and morality, condemning Israel.   The last sentence in the quote immediately above is pure gold.

As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own.   We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

   
    How insane!  It  should be common knowledge that Abbas & co. want a state instead of Israel, not a state beside Israel.  What part of "from the river to the sea" does Bibi not comprehend?  Predator-prey relationships do not work that way, they are permanent.

I believe such a peace can be achieved.  But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order.

    More insanity!  Iran does not have an exclusive franchise on terrorism.  Terrorism  & genocide of Jews are  intrinsic to Islam, Shi'ia or Sunni, they're all Muslims.  They disagree about who should be caliph.  They agree on  world conquest, terror & genocide.   Israel will have peace after the Muslims are converted, departed or dead, not before.

The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

    Nonsense!  That question has already been answered.  The international community has chosen  appeasement, throwing Israel to the wolves.  Joshua & Churchill are long since dead. The world has not learned and will not learn. History will repeat itself because nobody learns  and implements its lessons.

Sphere: Related Content

Defamation of Religions Draft 10-29-09

United Nations A/C.3/64/L.27 Combating defamation of religions tabled in the third committee. by Belarus, Syrian Arab Republic* and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of):
{A/C.3/64/L.28 Combating defamation of religions is embargoed, I can not determine if it is a competing draft or whether it is related in any way. }

*for the OIC.
The draft resolution is in the form of a 7 page, 56kb pdf consisting of an enumerated list of 25 items, the substantial parts begin on page 2.

Since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in remarks introducing the current Religious Freedom Report, rejected the concept of defamation of religions and accepted the concept of negative stereotyping:

Now, some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree. The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution.

I will begin with references to those concepts.

Defamation occurs twelve times in the draft resolution, beginning with the title.

Stressing that the defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to the illicit restriction of the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

That section implies a cause : effect relationship between defamation of religions, restriction of freedom & hatred and violence. Did Christians who viewed the Danish Cartoons subsequently assault Muslims and destroy their property as a result?

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

How do they plan to combat the defamation of Judaism and Christianity in the Qur'an wherein Allah expresses anger toward us, curses us and declares perpetual war against us? Is that really part of their program of action?

Noting with concern that the defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights, and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the resulting discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions,

"Inaction of some states" is a vague term; what does it mean? Is it a reference to Denmark allowing publication of the cartoons and Holland allowing the publication of Fitna? What discrimination against Muslims resulted from those publications?

...sessions, in which the Special Rapporteur highlighted the serious nature of the defamation of all religions and the need to complement legal strategies...

"Legal strategies" is a reference to national and international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of the defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

"Overall campaign of the defamation of religions" ; is one single source defaming more than one religion and inciting religious hatred? Where is religious hatred incited other than in Mosques Madrassas and the state run media of Islamic nations where Jihad against Jews & Christians is preached? Was it Muslims or Mormons who perpetrated that attack and those in London & Madrid? Because Muslims perpetrated those attacks and others in the name of Allah, we are unable to trust Muslims. Failure to profile would be suicidal.

6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as their economic and social exclusion;

Does anyone else recognize the non sequitur in that item?

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

Take a good long look at the emphasized clause in item 8. Terrorism is associated with Islam because it is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam, sanctified & exemplified in the Qur'an and confirmed in Moe's sunnah.

• 3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).
• 8:12 (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."
• 33:26 And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
• And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.
• Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
  Narrated Abu Huraira:
  
  Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

But we must not say or write that: to do so constitutes "defamation", "negative stereotyping", and " incitement to religious hatred & violence", according to the OIC and their factotums at the UN. Debate must be closed and silence imposed by law, even of truthful expressions which expose Islam's intrinsic evils.

Does anyone recognize the subsequent non sequitur? Promoting tolerance for the intolerable does not promote peace or justice. Islam is infamous because of its own canonical texts and its continuing history of rapine. Peace & justice would be promoted by recognizing and eliminating aggressive evil.

15. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general;

Item 15 asserts that accurate description of the doctrines and practices of Islam incites hatred, intimidation & coercion. It demands the passage & enforcement of national laws to prevent & punish truthful criticism of Islam, including Fitna and this blog post.

17. Welcomes the recent steps taken by Member States to protect freedom of religion through the enactment or strengthening of domestic frameworks and legislations to prevent the defamation of religions and the negative stereotyping of religious groups;

19. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through education and awareness-raising, and urges all States to ensure equal access to education for all, in law and in practice, including access to free primary education for all children, both girls and boys, and access for adults to lifelong learning and education based on respect for human rights, diversity and tolerance, without discrimination of any kind, and to refrain from any legal or other measures leading to racial segregation in access to schooling;

To make item 19 honest, indoctrination should be substituted for "education".

25. Requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world, to the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session.

Negative stereotyping occurs three times.

2. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still evident in the world;

They are concerned about Fitna & similar videos, the Danish Cartoons and blog posts which expose Islamic doctrines which sanctify and mandate genocidal warfare & terrorism.

17. Welcomes the recent steps taken by Member States to protect freedom of religion through the enactment or strengthening of domestic frameworks and legislations to prevent the defamation of religions and the negative stereotyping of religious groups;

Truthful exposure of Islamic doctrines & practices does not diminish freedom of religion. Where Allah's writ runs, as in Egypt, Pakistan & Saudi Arabia, Islam diminishes freedom of religion.

23. Welcomes the initiative by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the expert seminar on freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, on 2 and 3 October 2008, and requests the High Commissioner to continue to build on this initiative, with a view to concretely contributing to the prevention and elimination of all such forms of incitement and the consequences of negative stereotyping of religions or beliefs, and their adherents, on the human rights of those individuals and their communities;

According to the OIC and their UN factotums, Fitna and the Danish Cartoons are advocacy of religious hatred constituting incitement of violence. The Cartoons depicted Moe as a terrorist, which, by his own admission, he was. Fitna exposed the relationship between Allah's Jihad imperatives, the hatred preached by Muslim clerics and the violence done by their congregants. In reality, that is not defamation neither is it negative stereotyping nor is it incitement.

The draft resolution is a demand for national and international enforcement of Islam's blasphemy law, which punishes any negative statement about Allah, his messenger or his book with death.

Reliance of the Traveller’s Book O [Justice]. O8.7 lists 20 things that entail apostasy. Here are a few relevant items in that list.

-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;

-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;

-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). )

Another provision prescribes the penalty.

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.

One of the rules applied to dhimmis is equally instructive. What is impermissible to say about Allah or Moe? According to previously quoted statements, it is impermissible to link Islamic violence with Islamic scripture & tradition.

O11.10

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

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

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

The passage of these Defamation of Religion resolutions gives an unwarranted aura of legitimacy to the blasphemy laws enforced in Pakistan and other Islamic countries. Those laws are frequently used to persecute innocent victims, including indigenous Christians, converts to Christianity and missionaries.

Canadian, British, Australian and European critics of Islam have been persecuted, jailed and fined for truthful expressions about Islam. The policy of the Obama administration places our First Amendment right of free expression at risk. The Secretary of State condemns the defamation clauses but supports those alleging negative stereotyping. Both clauses have the same effect: criminalizing accurate description of Islamic doctrines and practices.

We must therefore resist and counter attack. Please sign, support and publicize the following on line petitions.

• International Qur'an Petition
• Free to Believe
• ACLJ

For a long list of links to previous resolutions, related documents and blog posts, refer to Defamation of Religions: Background Info.

External References in the resolution: superscripts refer to footnotes in the draft resolution.

• ¹ICERD
• ²ICCPR
• For detailed documentation of how Islamic doctrines violate these international covenants, refer to Islam vs Human Rights 64kb chm file compiled from 7 blog posts.
• ³Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
• ⁴Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live
• ⁵Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities,
• Recalling the relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council in this regard,
• None specified; assuming the reference is to previous defamation resolutions.
• E/CN.4/1999/167
• E/CN.4/2005/135
• E/CN.4/2004/127
• E/CN.4/2002/200
• E/CN.4/2001/167
• E/CN.4/2000/167
• A/HRC/4/123
• A/C.3/60/L.29
• A/RES/60/150
• A/RES/61/164
• A/RES/63/171
• A/C.3/60/SR.45
• A/HRC/4/123
• A/HRC/12/L.l4/Rev
• ⁶United Nations Millenium Declaration
• ⁷Durban Declaration A/CONF.189/12
• Durban Declaration - A/CONF.189/12 Chapter I - UN Documents
• ⁸Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference, held in Geneva in April 2009 A/CONF.211/8
• ⁹Taking note of the reports of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
• A/HRC/4/19
• A/HRC/6/6
• A/HRC/9/12
• A/HRC/12/38
• ¹⁰Global Agenda for Dialogue among Civilizations, A/RES/56/6
• ¹¹Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Tehran on 3 and 4 September 2007 A/62/464, annex.
• ¹²A/62/18
• CERD/C/63/CO/11, para. 20 (10 December2003)
• CERD/C/63/CO/6, para. 14 (10 December 2003)
• CERD/C/NGA/CO/18, para. 20 (1 November 2005)
• CERD/C/TZA/CO/16, para. 20 (1 November 2005)
• CERD/C/IRL/CO/2,para. 18 (14 April 2005)
• CERD/C/RUS/CO/19, paras. 16 and 17 (20 August 2008)
• resolution 63/171 of 18 December 2008
• ¹³report of the Secretary-General A/64/209
• ¹⁴United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, A/RES/60/288 General Assembly
• ¹⁵general recommendation XV (42) of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (A/48/18), chap. VIII, sect. B.
• ¹⁶World Programme for Human Rights Education proclaimed by the General Assembly on 10 December 2004 resolutions 59/113 A and B.

Sphere: Related Content