Obligation to Prohibit Violence Based On Religion

A/C.3/68/L.48 Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping,stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief continues with reaffirmation of another accursed lie.

Reaffirming also the obligation of States to prohibit discrimination and
violence on the basis of religion or belief and to implement measures to guarantee
the equal and effective protection of the law,

Are Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia obligated to prohibit and punish violence against Christians and their churches based on the victim's status of not being Muslims?  Who gives a damn about such an obligation? Who enforces it?

    Instead, Muslims implement Allah's Jihad imperative, expressed in Surah At-Taubah 9.123, secondary to 9.29,  to wage war neighboring Jews and Christians.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).

    Who do Muslims obey: the United Nations which can not enforce its edicts, or Allah who will damn them to eternal Hellfire for not waging war?

Sphere: Related Content

Islamophobia: I Slam Islam!

Islamophobia: I Slam Islam! Today's UN email listed a document from The Organization for Defending Victims of Violence whose about us page states that they were founded in Tehran.

    Regular readers of my posts know that I consider every instance of kvetching & caterwauling about Islamophobia as a teachable moment: an opportunity to redouble my condemnation of the world's most evil institution. 

    A/HRC/19/NGO/130 appears to have been composed in another language and translated into English.  I am dipping a few choice floaters from the septic tank for detailed refutation.  Use the link at the beginning of this paragraph if you desire to immerse yourself in the sewage.

incorrect and nonsense interpretation

    Only one man was fully qualified to interpret Islam: the man who "revealed" it.  Moe exemplified Islam in his speech & conduct while not "revealing" the Qur'an.  Exegetes use parallel ayat & relevant hadith to determine what each ayeh means. 

    Tafsir Ibn Kathir is detailed & loquacious but looking up ayat is not an easy task. I suggest using the search engine at http://www.qtafsir.com/ .  Tafsir al-Jalalayn & Tafsir Ibn Abbas are older, less detailed and have pick lists for selecting the surah & ayeh numbers. 

    Moe's "revelations" & sunnah are codified in Shari'ah. Reliance of the Traveller, a 1251 page tome which can be purchased from Amazon, is widely accepted and certified as authentic & accurate by sheikhs at Al-Azhar.  Turn to Book O, Chapter 9 for the damnable details of offensive warfare: its definition, communal obligation, practical application and regulations.

    Risala is the code of the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence. It is less wordy and more legible than Reliance. Chapter 30 covers jihad.  Hedaya is the code of the Hanifi school, arcane, dense and printed in an archaic type face.  Volume II, Book IX, Chapter I confirms the offensive & perpetual nature of jihad in stark terms.  The second chapter fills in some gaps concerning jizya: its punitive purpose, substitution for execution & humiliating collection procedure. 

associate “Islam” to “terrorism”

    Why would we think of Islam when terrorism is mentioned?  In the '70s, hijacking airliners & fragging airline terminals were popular activities in various parts of the world.  Who perfected those arts?  Who has been waging a war of terror against Israel for more than sixty years?  Who perpetrated the attacks on New York, London. Madrid, Beslan & Mumbai? 

    Muslims do not want us to learn of the terror nexus in Islam's scripture & tradition but, so long as the First Amendment is in force, I will reveal that connection. Allah said something about the subject. Of course the terror of the day of judgment is irrelevant.  Note the highlighted phrases in the quotes below.

• 7:4. How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.
  • (How many a township) people of townships (have We destroyed) We tormented! (As a raid by night) or day, (or while they slept at noon, Our terror) Our punishment (came unto them). [Tafsir Ibn Abbas]
• 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). 
  • Allah then mentioned the defeat of the unbelievers on the Day of Uhud, saying: (We shall cast terror) fear of you such that they run from you (into the hearts of those who disbelieve) the unbelievers of Mecca (because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed) either in a Scripture nor taught by a messenger. (Their habitation) their dwelling-place (is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers) the dwelling-place of the unbelievers is the Fire.  [Tafsir Ibn Abbas]
• 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." 
  • (When your Lord inspired the angels) it is also said that this means: when your Lord commanded the angels, ((saying:) I am with you) I will help you. (So make those who believe stand firm) in war; it is also said that this means: give those who believe the good news of victory. (I will throw) cast (fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve) the fear of Muhammad (pbuh) and his Companions. (Then smite the necks) their heads (and smite of them each finger) each shaped finger. [Tafsir Ibn Abbas]
• 8:57. Therefore, if you overcome them on the battlefield, deal with them very sternly, so as to strike terror among them, and to serve as a lesson for their successors. Perhaps, they would remember! [Dr. Munir Munshey & Dr. Kamal Omar ] 
  • (If thou comest on them) if you imprison them (in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them) such that they serve as a lesson to those who are behind them, (that haply they may remember) i.e. take admonition and avoid breaking their treaties. [Tafsir Ibn Abbas]
• 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 Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.[Abdullah Yusuf Ali]
  • Make ready for them, for fighting them, whatever force you can, the Prophet (s) said that this refers to ‘archers’, as reported by Muslim, and of horses tethered (ribāt is a verbal noun, meaning, ‘restraining them [for use] in the way of God’) that thereby you may dismay, terrify, the enemy of God and your enemy, namely, the disbelievers of Mecca, and others besides them, that is, other than those — namely, the hypocrites or the Jews, whom you know not: God knows them. And whatever thing you expend in the way of God, its requital, shall be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged, [you will not] be diminished anything thereof. [Tafsir al-Jalalayn]
• 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. 

  • And He brought down those of the People of the Scripture, namely, the [Banū] Qurayza, who had supported them from their strongholds (sayāsī is the plural of sīsa, and is that in which one fortifies himself [against an enemy]) and He cast terror into their hearts, [so that] some, of them, you slew, and these were the combatants, and some, of them, you took captive, namely, their children. [Tafsir al-Jalalayn]
• 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). 
  • It is He Who expelled those who disbelieved of the People of the Scripture, namely, the Jews of the Banū al-Nadīr, from their homelands, [from] their dwellings at Medina, at the first exile, that is, their exile to Syria, the last [exile] being their banishment to Khaybar by ‘Umar during his caliphate. You did not think, O believers, that they would go forth, and they thought that they would be protected (māni‘atuhum is the predicate of an, ‘that’) by their fortresses (husūnuhum, the agent of the verb [māni‘atuhum], with which the predication is completed) from God, from His chastisement. But God, His command and His chastisement, came at them from whence they had not reckoned, [from whence] had never occurred to them, from the part of the believers, and He cast terror (ru‘b or ru‘ub) into their hearts, by having their chief Ka‘b b. al-Ashraf slain, destroying [as they did] (read yukharribūna; or yukhribūna, [derived] from [4th form] akhraba) their houses, in order to take away with them what they valued of wood and so on, with their own hands and the hands of the believers. So take heed, O you who have eyes! [Tafsir al-Jalalayn]
• 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).

    Go back and re-read 8:57 in the light of the last highlighted clause in 59:2. Muslms are to treat victims harshly so as to strike terror in those behind them, their next anticipated victims. In 59:2, we are told to take warning from the example of the Bani An-Nadir. Intelligent readers will get a clue. 

    Allah's Messenger also had words concerning terror, fewer than Allah's but so stark as to settle the matter beyond any shadow of doubt. 

• Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
  Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
  The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
  1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
  2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
  3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
  4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
  5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.
• 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).

    Allah said that he would cast terror and that he cast terror resulting in death, enslavement, destruction & dispossession.  Moe said that he was made victorious with terror. Can you get a clue?  Muslims, politicians, educators, clerics & the media are liars when they deny the obvious connection between Islam and terrorism: terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam. 

Islamophobia

monolithic & static

    There are many sects; which of the mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence rejects the communal object of offensive jihad?  How has Islam changed in the last 14 centuries?  How do you improve upon perfection? How do you change that which is immutable?

• None can change His Words. [6:115]
• No change can there be in the Words of Allâh, this is indeed the supreme success. [10:64]
• None can change His Words, [18:27]
• No change let there be in Khalq­illâh (i.e. the Religion of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism), that is the straight religion, but most of men know not. [Tafsir At­Tabarî, Vol 21, Page 41] [30:30}

separate

    Where do Muslims assimilate? Where do they blend in, drop their religious garb and language; where do they participate in the labor economy?

no common values

    "We love death more than you love life." Their highest aspiration is stated clearly in the motto of al-Ikhwan: "God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations."^[14][15]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood]

    Moe declared that he would love serial martyrdom as reported in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.54.

Inferior

    Could it be possible that there is good reason for us to view Islam as inferior? What Muslim satrapy was not a primitive, backwards, undeveloped pit of misery prior to the discovery of massive oil reserves under the sand? 

barbaric

    Why would we associate Islam with barbarism? Perhaps because of the Barbary Pirates? Or could it be because of chopping off heads and hands? Could Allah's bloodlust for genocide have some bearing on this?

violent

    Why would Islam be viewed as violent and supportive of terrorism? Could it be because of the Hindu, Assyrian & Armenian genocides? Could Allah's jihad imperatives in 8:39 & 9:29,. which are codified in Reliance of the Traveller, O9.8  & 9.9 have something to do with this perception?

political ideology

    Perhaps Islam is perceived as political because it conflates mosque and state. Could it be because Islamic law is derived from the Qur'an? 

criticism of the west is rejected

    Islamic criticism is rejected because Islam sees  the speck in our eye, while ignoring the beam in its own.  With all its flaws, Western Civilization is far superior to Islam. 

discrimination

    Islamic hostility should be used to justify expulsion & exclusion of Muslims from Dar ul-Harb. Unfortunately, our elected traitors lack the spinal fortitude to do what must be done to preserve Western Civilization. 

hostility

    If we were not hostile to a war cult which seeks to subjugate the entire world, we would be  suicidally insane.

divine religions

    There is no good reason why the followers of divine religions can not live together in peace.  Christianity & Judaism are not in conflict.  Islam, the source of conflict, is not a divine religion: it is demonic.  Only a demon would deliberately create one group of people for the fire and another for Paradise.  I refer to Moe's creation myth contained in Malik's Muwatta 46.1.2. Only a demon would set "great slaughter" as his Prophet's admission to Paradise. 

Sphere: Related Content

OIC: United Stand Against Intolerance ?

OIC: United Stand Against Intolerance ?
Last March, the HRC passed a new resolution which was said to abandon the nefarious "defamation of religions" concept, substituting "negative stereotyping" & "incitement".  That is the official position; divergent from objective factual reality. The distinction is without difference, and the amended verbiage is persiflage.

    That fact is exposed by a March 24 address to the HRC by Mr. Zamir Akram, Pakistan's Ambassador.   He made it clear that the new resolution does not abrogate previous resolutions, instead, it confirms them.  His speech is dissected in detail here.

Mr. President: this resolution addresses a number of issues over which the OIC has been expressing concern over the years. having said  that, I wish to state categorically that this resolution does not replace earlier resolutions on combating  defamation. which were adopted by the Human Rights Council  and remain valid.  This resolution L.38  is an attempt on the part of the oic to build consensus on an issue of vital importance not only to Muslims but to people of all religions  and beliefs by identifying  ways and means to deal with the growing problems of religious incitement and discrimination and incitement to hatred and violence based on religion or belief.

    The Secretary General of the OIC also addressed the HRC on the subject of the new resolution. 

OIC has a principled postition against defamation of any  religion, dehumanization of the followers or denigration of symbols  sacred   to  all     religions.    The  developments  including the ban of construction of minarets, the attempts towards burning of Qur'an and the use of Islamophobia
as an instrument of electoral politics are ominous.  There is an urgent need to initiate and sustain what I would like to term as ‘preventive  cultural    diplomacy’.   We   need  to  move beyond  event based calls for action to create spaces for structured engagement   The Human Rights   framework provides with a concrete basis for this engagement.   We believe that tbe workshops on incitement to hatred under the Durban mandate constitute and important avenue for a synthesis  aimed at bridging the divergence of views.

    The Secretary General has spoken out again, this time uttering & publishing a lie so egregious that it must be refuted immediately.  It is necessary to rub his snout in his mess of deception.

 "The OIC has never sought to limit freedom of expression, give Islam preferential treatment, curtail creativity or allow discrimination against religious minorities in Muslim countries. "

•  never sought to limit freedom of expression
  • OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his dismay and disappointment at the release of the book despite the fact that he, and some leaders of Muslim countries, had personally written letters to the foreign minister of Denmark, urging the Danish government to stop the publication of the book because of its highly provocative and inciting content.[Khaleej Times Habib Shaikh]
  • Tajikistan, current chair of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has sent an official request to the UN to pressure Norway to stop publication of a reprint of the book with scandalous cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. [...] The letter, addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, voices the concern of 57 members of the OIC and calls on the UN to “take measures against” the plan, reports Interfax. [http://rt.com/news/islamic-un-stop-cartoons/] 
  • "Pakistan said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the Netherlands to prosecute Mr Wilders for defamation and deliberately hurting Muslim sentiments, the official Associated Press of Pakistan news agency reported."[BBC News]

    For the benefit of those suffering from anal cranial juxtaposition, I will clear away the chaff:

• never sought to limit freedom of expression
  • urging the Danish government to stop the publication
  • pressure Norway to stop publication
  • told the Dutch ambassador
    • to prosecute Mr Wilders

    From the viewpoint of a rational and honest person, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is a damned liar, having deliberately made an egregiously untrue statement.  From the Islamic point of view, he is not a liar because Islam does not recognize disbelievers as human, denying our rights. They can not violate our freedom of expression because we have none. Human rights do not apply to us in their point of view.  The sanctity of life is conditioned on being Muslim.

[...]And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah[...] [Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387]

    Having exposed the most egregious deception, I will continue fisking this screed, which is being widely propagated. I perceive that this and related articles are the first wave of a tsunami of pressure focused on the next General Assembly session beginning September 20. 

    As is my habit with target rich environments, I will link my comments to superscripts in the text. Click the superscripts to read the comments and use your Backspace key to return to the text. 

Norway attacks reinforce need for united stand against intolerance Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

Istanbul, Turkey - The horrific and tragic incident that happened in Norway reminds us again of the importance of combating religious intolerance1 and promoting cultural understanding2. Anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes and activities3, known as Islamophobia, are increasingly finding place in the agenda of ultra-right wing4 political parties and civil societies in the West in their anti-immigrant5 and anti-multiculturalism6 policies, as was evident in the manifesto of the Norway killer7. Their views8 are being promoted under the banner of freedom of expression9 while claiming that Muslims do not respect that right. A few days before the Norway attack, on 15 July in Istanbul, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the United States agreed to a united stand on “[c]ombating intolerance10, negative stereotyping11 and stigmatization of12, and discrimination13, incitement to violence14, and violence against persons based on religion or belief15” through the implementation of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. The meeting – co-chaired by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and myself, with the attendance of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs together with the foreign ministers and officials of OIC member states and Western countries, as well as international organisations – reaffirmed the commitment of the participants to the effective implementation of the measures set in the resolution.16 This was a major step towards strengthening the foundations of tolerance and respect for religious diversity17 as well as enhancing the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world18. The OIC, which was the initiator of Resolution 16/18, worked in close cooperation in the drafting process with the United States and the European Union in bringing about a breakthrough on 21 March. The 2011 HRC resolution is a genuine effort to usher in an era of understanding on the issue of religious intolerance. It gives the widest margin of freedom of expression, and reiterates the rejection of discrimination, incitement and stereotyping used by the other or against the symbols of the followers of religions. 19 The OIC has never sought to limit freedom of expression, give Islam preferential treatment, curtail creativity or allow discrimination against religious minorities in Muslim countries. The Islamic faith is based on tolerance and acceptance of other religions. It does not condone discrimination of human beings on the basis of caste, creed, colour or faith20. It falls on all the OIC member states as a sacred duty to protect the lives and property of their non-Muslim citizens and to treat them without discrimination of any form. Those elements who seek to harm or threaten minority citizens must be subjected to law. Our strong stand condemning violence perpetrated against non-Muslims whether in Iraq, Egypt or Pakistan has been consistent. No one has the right to insult another for their beliefs or to incite hatred and prejudice. That kind of behaviour is irresponsible and uncivilised. We also cannot overlook the fact that the world is diverse. The Western perception on certain issues would differ from those held by others. We need to be sensitive and appreciative of this reality, more so when it comes to criticising or expressing views on issues related to religion and culture. 21 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 hatred22 that fuel an atmosphere of dangerous mutual suspicion. Freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility23. At the same time, violent reactions to provocations are also irresponsible and uncivilised and we condemn them unequivocally. It is not enough to pass resolutions and laws against religious incitement. We should also be diligent in launching more initiatives and measures towards better intercultural dialogue and understanding at all levels – the political, social, business, media, academic and religious. Resolution 16/18 includes an eight-point approach that calls for various measures to foster tolerance, including developing collaborative networks to build mutual understanding and constructive action, creating appropriate mechanisms within the government to identify and address potential areas of tension between members of religious communities, and raising awareness at the local, national and international levels on the effects of negative religious stereotyping and incitement to religious hatred. The implementation of the 2011 HRC Resolution 16/1824 would take us a long way in making our world a more peaceful and harmonious place to live in. ### * Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu is the Secretary General of the Jeddah-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of the Islamic Conference), an international organisation consisting of 57 member states. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews). Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 16 August 2011, www.commongroundnews.org Copyright permission is granted for publication.

• Search: "Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu"+ "stop publication"
  • Results: 35
    •   Khaleej Times Habib Shaikh [Emphasis added.]

      2 October 2010 JEDDAH — The Organisation of the Islamic Conference has condemned the publication of the book Tyranny of Silence in Denmark.
      The book, containing blasphemous caricatures, hit the stores in Denmark on Thursday amid concerns over a backlash from the Muslim world.

      The cartoons were first published by the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005, resulting in condemnation from Muslims around the world.

      OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed his dismay and disappointment at the release of the book despite the fact that he, and some leaders of Muslim countries, had personally written letters to the foreign minister of Denmark, urging the Danish government to stop the publication of the book because of its highly provocative and inciting content. [...] Emphasising the moral responsibility of the political leadership of Denmark, Ihsanoglu said the publication of the book was a deliberate attempt to incite prejudice and animosity. This would undermine the ongoing efforts of the international community to promote understanding and peaceful coexistence among people of diverse religious and cultural backgrounds.

    • http://rt.com/news/islamic-un-stop-cartoons/Tajikistan, current chair of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has sent an official request to the UN to pressure Norway to stop publication of a reprint of the book with scandalous cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed. [...] The letter, addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, voices the concern of 57 members of the OIC and calls on the UN to “take measures against” the plan, reports Interfax.

---

1. Religious intolerance indeed. We must tolerate Islam, but Islam is not obligated to tolerate Judaism or Christianity. Tolerance is a one way street 
* whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted [3:85}
* 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 ]. [8:39]
* those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers, it is they on whom is the Curse of Allâh and of the angels and of mankind[2:161]
2. Cultural understanding, yeah, right. They do not want us to understand Islam, they want us to accept a false image; a web of lies spun by Islam and its apologists. What passes for cultural understanding is really kitman: deception by obfuscation.
3. Translation: resistance: Kuffar attempting to defend themselves and their culture. Phobia implies irrational fear and loathing. There is nothing irrational about loathing an institution which has a 1400 year track record of genocide, murdering an estimated 270*10⁶  people. 
4. The VVP is not Nazi or fascist, it is democratic. The Secretary General is using loaded words as a smear tactic.  
5. The Immigrants in question are primarily Muslims, living as parasites on the state and breeding like rats. They tend to rape, riot and block the streets raising their butts to the moon. Whats not to oppose about that?
6. Multiculturalism is the idea that an inferior culture which dominates women, assaults Queers, rapes indigenous girls, declares superiority, refuses to assimilate, threatens war, supports terrorism and constantly escalates its demands is equal to Western Civilization. Whats not to oppose about suicidal idiocy?
7. Breivert's Manifesto discusses 'martyrdom operations'. "Yes, for certain religious members,
   certain measures are obviously in violation to biblical teachings but the amount of grace
   and divine goodwill generated at the point where you sacrifice everything (in the
   martyrdom operation) will provide you with an abundance of it, which will more than
   nullify any minor or serious sins committed prior to operation." [pg. 846] On page 849 he lists three pieces of music to be played during 'martyrdom operations'.  It is obvious that Breivert adopted enemy doctrine & tactics. It is obvious that he is not sane. While objective facts reproduced in the manifesto remain true and accepted by others, the manifesto is his alone. The manifesto is violent, see pages 1028 & 1344; rational resistance is educational and political, not violent. Ihsanoglu is engaging in smear tactics, attempting to tar others with Breivert's violence.
8. Our views of Islam are founded on facts discovered in Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.  Check out ICCPR, Article 19. §1 guarantees the right to hold opinions. §2 guarantees freedom of expression.  The spewers of feces assert that rights are interdependent and cling bitterly to exaggerated ideas of Article 20.
9. In America we have the Declaration of Independence; God gave us the right to live;  & Bill of rights. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." If prohibited from truthfully communicating warning of approaching danger, we would be rendered defenseless. We perceive Islam to be a threat because of its declaration & prosecution of perpetual war.
   • 2:216
   • 8:39
   • 9:29
   • 9:111
   • 9:123
   • 47:4
   • 61:4
   • 61:10-11
   • Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386
   • Tafsir Ibn Kathir  The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
   • Reliance of the Traveller, O9.8
   • Risala
   • Hedaya


10. If they were sincere about combating intolerance, they would outlaw the Qur'an because it inculcates intolerance.  Is there anything more intolerant than declaring us the worst of living creatures, cursing us and declaring perpetual war against us? 
11. When we share the facts outlined in point 9 above, we are accused of negative stereotyping. Exposing the fact that Allah commands Muslims to wage war against us, Moe confirmed the imperative & implemented it and Islamic law codifies it is not negative stereotyping, it is revealing objective factual reality. It does not mean that every Muslim is violent, it means that Islam requires every Muslim to pray for, pay for and or participate in aggressive conquest. 
12. Should being a made member of the Mafia carry a stigma? Why then should membership in Moe's war cult not carry a stigma? 
13. Should members of the Mafia be subject to discrimination? Should they be closely observed; suspected of criminal activity? Why then should members of the cult which sanctifies & celebrates terrorism not be suspected, observed and excluded from our societies? 
14. If incitement were to be combated, the Qur'an would be outlawed. Of course, that is not the intention of the resolution's authors and few will read 8:65, 9:38-39, 9:123 & 61:10-12 to learn why it should be. The Motoons simply depicted Moe as a terrorist, which, by his own admission, he was. They did not suggest that viewers should assault or wage war upon Muslims. The associated violence was incited by Imams in Mosques, not by the cartoonists or publisher.  Fitna, the short documentary by Geert Wilders, displayed the incitement contained in the Qur'an, which flows through Mosques.  Fitna did not incite violence, Imams did, resulting in riots.  They are demanding that all criticism of Islam be outlawed, twisting and perverting language in the process.

CNN.Com's European outlet has a reminder of what the Secretary General said about Fitna, the documentary video by Geert Wilders.

• "The film was a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims" that aimed to "provoke unrest and intolerance,"
  

BBC News informs us that Pakistan demanded prosecution.

"Pakistan said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the Netherlands to prosecute Mr Wilders for defamation and deliberately hurting Muslim sentiments, the official Associated Press of Pakistan news agency reported."

Wikipedia helps us to review the UN position.

After the release of the film, a number of international organizations released statements or otherwise responded to the film. United Nations' Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated on on March 28, 2008 that

I condemn, in the strongest terms, the airing of Geert Wilders’ offensively anti-Islamic film. There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here. I acknowledge the efforts of the Government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of this film, and appeal for calm to those understandably offended by it. Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility.^[133][134]

1. If they really gave a damn about violence against persons based on their religion, they would be acting to protect Christians in Muslim dominated areas of Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria and other places where Christians are bombed, shot, burned and hacked to death with impunity.  
2. If there was any possibility of balanced & effective implementation the resolution, no Muslim would vote for it because it would require the outlawing of Islam. 
3. Tolerance respect for diversity? Really? Yeah, right. "Truly, the religion with Allâh is Islâm". "Allâh! Lâ ilahâ illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), "
   

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

   -7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

4. What right is more fundamental than the right to life?  "then kill the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush." "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." Get a clue: our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims.
5. The sentence is unmitigated hypocrisy. What did Ban Ki-moon say about Fitna? Something about "hate speech" & "incitement". Oh, yes, he said that freedom of expression was "not involved:.   Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu  called it a "deliberate act of discrimination"  intended to "provoke unrest and intolerance.  Reality check: Fitna shows the  violent Qur'an verses side by side with the Imams who  invoke them and the resulting riots.  Describing is not doing.  
6. Like most Muslim screeds, this one is redundant. One lie must be pointed out: discrimination. Reliance of the Traveller is Islamic law. This provision affects conquered Jews & Christians.

   O11.5

   Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

   -1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

   -2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

   -3- are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

   -4- must keep to the side of the street;

   -5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

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

   -7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

   O11.6

   They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

   O11.7

   A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

7. Diversity, yeah, right.  Because there is more than one "religion" in the world, we must not mention the fact that one of them is a war cult, hellbent on conquering us, not a legitimate religion. 
8. Incitement to hatred? Muhammad bragged about being made victorious with terror. Allah declared that he would cast terror. Allah declared that he cast terror, resulting in the death of the men of a Jewish settlement and the enslavement of their widows and orphans. The fatal facts of Islam are truly worthy of hatred and contempt but exposing them is not incitement.  
9. Those of us who have become familiar with the damnable doctrines & practices of Islam have a responsibility to share our knowledge with our fellows and to encourage them to read Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.  There is no responsibility to be silent or soft pedal the truth. 
10. Examine the resolution's call to action :

    5. Notes the speech given by Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the fifteenth session of the Human Rights Council, and draws on his call on States to take the following actions to foster a domestic environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect, by:

    (a) Encouraging the creation of collaborative networks to build mutual understanding, promoting dialogue and inspiring constructive action towards shared policy goals and the pursuit of tangible outcomes, such as servicing projects in the fields of education, health, conflict prevention, employment, integration and media education;

    (b) Creating an appropriate mechanism within Governments to, inter alia, identify and address potential areas of tension between members of different religious communities, and assisting with conflict prevention and mediation;

    (c) Encouraging training of Government officials in effective outreach strategies;

    (d) Encouraging the efforts of leaders to discuss within their communities the causes of discrimination, and evolving strategies to counter these causes;

    (e) Speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;

    (f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief; {Review the definitions implicit in criticisms of Fitna and the Motoons!!!}
    

    (g) Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through, inter alia, education and awareness-building;  {Indoctrination.}
    

    (h) Recognizing that the open, constructive and respectful debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national and international levels, can play a positive role in combating religious hatred, incitement and violence;

    6. Calls upon all States:

    (a) To take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries in the conduct of their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or belief;

    (b) To foster religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly and on an equal footing to society;

    (c) To encourage the representation and meaningful participation of individuals, irrespective of their religion, in all sectors of society;

    (d) To make a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures;

    7. Encourages States to consider providing updates on efforts made in this regard as part of ongoing reporting to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights;

    8. Calls upon States to adopt measures and policies to promote the full respect for and protection of places of worship and religious sites, cemeteries and shrines, and to take measures in cases where they are vulnerable to vandalism or destruction;

    9. Calls for strengthened international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for human rights and diversity of religions and beliefs, and decides to convene a panel discussion on this issue at its seventeenth session, within existing resources.

Sphere: Related Content

Geert Wilders Trial: Truth is No Defense

Google published an article from Canada Free Press about recent developments in the trial of Geert Wilders.  One prosecutorial qoute  stands out like sore thumb and must be addressed.  Thanks and a tip of the hat to Jihad Watch.

"You can expect a politician to be aware of the impact of his words and in any case, the legal limit may not be crossed, no matter how important it may be to address supposed problems and to contribute to matters of general interest,"   Prosecutor Birgit van Roessel [Emphasis added.]

    The relevant statutory provisions are revealed in the summons.  Expressions which "insult a group of people"  and/or " incites hatred or discrimination" against them are arbitrarily prohibited.  No defenses are allowed.  

    If Muslims, motivated by the normative doctrines of Islam enshrined in the Qur'an and exemplified by Muhammad's Sunnah, murder film makers, assault homosexuals, threaten members of parliament and pose an existential threat to the cultural identity and continuance of a free & democratic Netherlands, public disclosure of the facts is prohibited and can not be excused on grounds of necessity.  

    Besides mandating national suicide, the prosecutor has a severe cognitive dissonance problem. She moved for dismissal of charges of insulting Muslims because the insult was to Islamic ideology, not to Muslims.  If the insult was to Islam, then the incitement &  discrimination must also be against Islam,  not Muslims.  All of the charges should be dropped, they should never have been filed.  

Sphere: Related Content

OIC Withdraws Draft Res. Condemning Qur'an Burning

Pakistan suddenly withdrew the OIC's Draft Resolution  Condemning a Call to 'Burn a Qur'an Day'. Beyond the usual boiler plate references, the draft had five main points.

• Condemnation of
• 'Burn a Koran Day'
• advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
• hatred
• discrimination
• hostility
• violence
• Calls
• upon international community to stand against such events which
• undermine peaceful coexistence
• create an environment conducive to violence; reprisal
• upon all states to condemn & oppose advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
• hatred
• discrimination
• hostility
• violence
• Urges the international community to support all international and regional initiatives to promote cross-cultural and interfaith harmony.

    In lieu of the draft resolution, the Council President issued a Presidential statement expressing the consensus of the council.

Statement on behalf of the Human Rights Council
SIHUASAK PHUANKETKEOW, President of the Council, said in view of the growing number of instances of religious intolerance such as discrimination, conflating a religion with terrorism, or desecrating or destroying holy books, religious sites or shrines, he had been empowered by the agreement of all Council members to make the following statement on behalf of the Human Rights Council:

“The Council condemns recent instances of religious intolerance, prejudice and related discrimination and violence, which continued to occur in all parts of the world. The international community should stand united against all forms of religious intolerance and should engage in practical steps to end such intolerance. The Council encourages efforts to establish collaborative networks to build mutual understanding and promote dialogue. The Council stresses that these efforts should be taken to protect individuals of all religions and beliefs in a non-discriminatory way, and should apply to promote understanding among them. The Council also recognises that open, constructive and respectful debate, as well as interfaith dialogue, could have a positive effect. The Council reiterates the call by the United Nations Secretary-General on the necessity for the voices of moderation to be heard and mutual respect to prevail.”

That breaks down to:

• Condemns:
• instances of
• religious intolerance
• prejudice
• related:
• discrimination
• violence
• Unite against & take practical steps to end : 
• religious intolerance
• Encourages
• efforts to
• establish collaboration to build
• mutual understanding
• dialogue
• Stresses that it should be done to
• protect individuals of all religions
• promote understanding
• Recognizes Secy. General's call for moderation & mutual respect.

    The major differences I spot are the Presidential statement's lack of direct reference to 'Burn a Koran Day' & advocacy of hatred  and the addition of  condemnation of  intolerance.

    The draft had plenty of support; the E.U. had condemned the event, so it is probable that the draft would have won a unanimous ballot. Why was it withdrawn at the last moment, without debate and a vote?

    Why does the Presidential statement omit mention of the event which inspired the resolution & its substitute?   If they seek to prevent future incidents of Qur'an burning, they should be open about it, and specify the  act which offends them.   Why does the statement omit condemnation of advocacy of religious hatred?
   
    Terry Jones  abandoned his project, but Muslims continued to riot. They burned churches, Bibles and flags.  Could it be that the Human Rigths Council was caught in a dilemma between condemning Muslim rioters or demonstrating their bias?

    Did the statement omit advocacy of religious hatred because the Qur'an is full of it?

    The Secretary General of the OIC welcomed the  statement and  used the occasion to push the OIC agenda.

Secretary General welcomes the consensual statement by the 15th Session of the Human Rights Council against growing instances of religious intolerance.

The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference Prof Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu welcomed the adoption of a statement regarding condemnation of recent instances of religious intolerance, prejudice and related discrimination and violence, which continued to occur in all parts of the world. The consensual statement was read out, on Council’s behalf, by its President towards the end of the 15th Session in Geneva. ...more

...The Secretary General emphasized that the statement was particularly timely in view of the growing number of instances of religious intolerance such as discrimination, conflating religion with terrorism, desecrating or destroying holy books and religious sites or shrines. The Secretary General particularly welcomed the call by the Council - being the human rights conscience of the world— upon the international community to stand against all forms of religious intolerance and engage in practical steps to end such intolerance. ...

...He urged the international community to build upon the momentum generated by the consensual statement at the Council, in joining hands with the OIC towards evolving a normative approach to deal with growing instances of religious intolerance that continued to pose a clear and present danger to international community’s efforts and desire for global peace, security and stability.

Lets  examine the elements added by Ihsanoglu.

• conflating religion with terrorism
• desecrating or destroying holy books
• religious sites or shrines
• normative approach
• clear and present danger to... global peace, security and stability.

    "Conflating Islam with terrorism" is standard boiler plate from the combating defamation resolutions.  It appears that I am the only one pointing out the fact that Allah & Moe established the nexus nearly 1400 years ago.  Allah said that he would cast terror, in 3:151 and 8:12. He said that he cast terror and described the results in 33:26 and 59:2. Moe said that he was made victorious by terror in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220. In more modern times, Brig. S.K. Malik exposed the strategic use of terror in "The Qur'anic Concept of War"[A training manual for Pakistan's army.].

The Quranic strategy comes into play from the preparation stage, and aims at imposing a direct decision upon the enemy.  Other things remaining the same, our preparation for war is the true index of our performance during war. We must aim at creating a wholesome respect for our Cause and our will and determination to attain it, in the minds of the enemies, well before facing them on the field of battle. So spirited, zealous, complete and thorough should be our preparation for war that we should enter upon the ‘war of muscles' having already won the ‘war of will'. Only a strategy that aims at striking tenor into the hearts of the enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart‘s dream into a reality....

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him.
[Emphasis added.]

    If the Arabic Qur'an might be holy (which I deny, it is unholy), the translations which were to be burned and those which were torn  and burned were English translations, not considered sacred to Islam.   The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shreds bibles and crucifixes carried into the Kingdom.  Will the Human Rights Council and the OIC condemn their policy?

    When the PLO invaded & occupied the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, they defecated on the Altar and performed istijia with pages torn from the Bible.  Did the Human Rights Commission or the OIC condemn their acts of desecration?

    "Normative approach" is a code phrase for legislation.  The OIC is behind the HRC's Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary International Standards, whose mission is to use a protocol to insert the defamation resolutions into ICERD  so as to give them the force of law.  This issue is flying below the radar, very few people know about it, and those who know ain't telling. Nobody is doing anything effective to stop the travesty of justice.  But I will share what I know with you.

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

    "Clear and present danger to... global peace, security and stability". Did the Motoons incite Danes to riot, burn Mosques and kill Muslims?  Who rioted, burned embassies and killed people?  Did clear and present danger arise from the Motoons?  

    Did International Burn a Qur'an Day" incite Americans to riot, burn property & kill people?  What incited riots other than rabid kutbah in the Mosques of Pakistan, Afghanistan & Indonesia and incendiary news coverage?

    How can there be religious tolerance when Islam is intolerant and intolerable?  Has no one read the Qur'an?  3:85 says that no religion but Islam will be tolerated. 9:33 says that Islam must be made dominant.  Ibn Kathir's Tafsir has some instructive titles and topics each of which contains relevant ayat & ahadith.

• The Command to have Enmity towards the Disbelievers and to abandon supporting Them
• The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom
• The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah
• Allah gives Victory to the Believing Group
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas
• The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
• The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites
• The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
• The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book
• The Good News that Islam shall prevail
• Making Preparations for War to strike Fear in the Hearts of the Enemies of Allah
• Muslims invoke Allah for Help, Allah sends the Angels to help Them

    Discrimination?  Yeah, right. Islamic law says that kuffar can not testify in court.

o24.2

Legal testimony is only acceptable from a witness who:

(a) is free;

(b) is fully legally responsible (mukallaf, def: c8.1) (O: as testimony is not accepted from a child or insane person, even when the child's testimony regards injuries among children that occurred at play);

(c) is able to speak;

(d) it mentally awake;

(e) is religious (O: meaning upright (o24.4) (A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says,

"Let those of rectitude among you testify" (Koran 65:2),

and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying); [Emphasis added.]

But wait, there's more!  Under Islamic law, the blood money for killing a kaffir is significantly discounted.

o4.9

(A: For the rulings below, one multiplies the fraction named by the indemnity appropriate to the death or injury's type of intentionality and other relevant circumstances that determine the amount of a male Muslim's indemnity (def: o4.2-6 and o4.13). )

The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim. [Emphasis added.]

    Don't hand me a turd and say its sausage, I know the difference. Islam is not tolerable and I will not tolerate it.  Islam is not respectable and I will not respect it.

Sphere: Related Content