You've Been Mooned: Combating Defamation of Religions

The Secretary General of the United Nations issued his annual report on combating defamation of religions [Islam] September 23.  I present a link to the report below, along with several important excerpts. I have also included a list of links to various documents referenced in the report. 

A/66/372
Combating defamation of religions
Report of the Secretary-General

This issue came to the front burner in 1999 when the HRC passed the original resolution combating defamation of Islam.  Because of the ensuing  controversy, subsequent resolutions substituted religions for Islam in their titles but their contents belie the distinction without a difference.  My sources confirm the original title, but the document linked above lacks it; I presume it has been bowdlerized.

    It is difficult to find the resolution; in my search for it, I found an important quote attributed to Masood Khan, representing Pakistan at the UN.

"Stereotyping of any religion as propagating violence or its association with terrorism constitutes defamation of religion. It unfortunately breeds a culture of hatred, disharmony and discrimination,"

There is one little problem: the element of falsity.

def·a·ma·tion

    [def-uh-mey-shuhn] 

noun

the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the goodreputation of another, as by slander or libel;
calumny: She suedthe magazine for defamation of character. [Emphasis added]

"Islam promotes violence"

"Islam promotes violence" is not defamatory if it is true.  "Terrorism is an Islamic tactic" is not defamatory if it is true.  Those statements do not defame Islam or stereotype Muslims unless they are false. 

    "Islam promotes violence" is either true or false. The veracity of the statement can be verified by reference to Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.  Allah said that he ordained jihad for Muslims.

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

Hilali & Khan included a definition of jihad in a parenthetical expression. They give a fuller definition in their footnote to 2:190.  Islamic law defines jihad as "to war against non-Muslims".  Islamic law declares annual military expeditions against disbelievers to be a "communal obligation".  Al-Shafi'i put it this way:

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

Al-Ghazali said something similar:

…one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...

Islamic law says that the caliph "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians... " In the next section (O9.9) it says that the caliph "fights all other peoples until they become Muslim".   Why would Islamic law  make such statements?   Only because of what Allah & Moe said and did.   "Ordained" was not Allah's last word on the subject.   "Fight them", "fight those who",  "Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you" . Moe said that he was "ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah."

What did Moe do to implement those jihad imperatives?  He dictated and dispatched extortion letters, and followed up with his army.  See. for example, the letter to the Jews at Khaibar, and the oral tradition about his raid on them.

    Examine the critical quote again, because I have a prime example for you: "Islam promotes violence".  This is the heading from Book 21 of Malik's Muwatta:  "Section: Stimulation of Desire for Jihad"  The title of Riyad us-Saliheen, Book 11, Chapter 234 is "Obligation of Jihad".  It quotes the relevant ayat & ahadith with commentary. 

    Islam is intrinsically violent, by design. It has not been perverted, distorted nor hijacked; it promotes violence because violence was Moe's source of income.  Doubt this?  How did Allah make Moe wealthy?

    This is not defamation of Islam because it is truthful, proven so by Islam's own canon.  This is not stereotyping of Muslims because Allah stated their obligations, defined believers as those who "fight in" his cause, promised them Paradise if they do and Hell if they don't.  Islam is all or nothing, Muslims are not allowed to select the verses they like.

"Terrorism is an Islamic tactic."

    Most of the Qur'anic references to terror are concerned with what Allah will do to when the world ends. Those are not important to this discussion; the others are. Allah said that he would cast terror.  He said that he cast terror. He said that the Jews were more afraid of Moe and his army than of him.

    Islam Awakened presents a table of 37 parallel translations. Here are some interesting samples from 8:57.

• to strike fear
• then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear
• deal with them in such a manner that those that follow them should abandon their designs and may take warning
• use them to frighten off anyone who comes in their rear
• set an example of their humiliation serving as a deterrent
  
• make a fearsome example of them
• disperse thou through them those behind them,
  
• make a harsh example of them
• deal with them in such a manner as to deter those behind them
• (by inflicting an exemplary punishment upon them) disperse those behind them
• make them a fearsome example
• so as to strike terror among them
• then thereby strike fear in those that are behind them
•  strike terror in those that are behind them
• make of them a fearsome example

8:60 is another prime source of terror references.

• to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies
• to strike terror into the hearts and minds of Allah's enemy
• you terrorize/terrify with it God's enemy
•  to strike terror thereby
•  so that you may strike terror into the hearts of your enemy
• Cause terror with this (war readiness) amongst the enemy of Allah
•  so that you strike terror into the enemies of Allah
• to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah
  
•  that you may strike terror in (the hearts of) the enemies of God
  
• whereby you may frighten the enemy of ALLAH
• to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God
• you shall strike terror through it
• to threaten the enemy of Allah
•  that you may overawe the enemies of Allah
• whereby ye may strike a terror into the enemy of God,
• whereby ye may strike terror into the enemy of God

    Moe also had something to say about how he was made victorious:  " Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. "; "I have been made victorious with terror ". Who associated Islam with terrorism? 
            

    Back to the report, this paragraph quotes from another big title officer. [Emphasis added.]

79. In March 2011, the Office was informed that church members of the Dove
World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, burned a copy of the Koran. The
incident elicited strong condemnation on the part of the United States Government
and religious leaders from different faiths across the world. It also resulted in
violent reactions, including the killing of United Nations staff and others in
Afghanistan. Both the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-
General replied to letters from the Organization of the Islamic Conference
condemning those acts, which divided peoples and societies, and reaffirming the
collective interest of the international community in countering acts of intolerance.
The Secretary-General also condemned the incident and said that such actions
cannot be condoned by any religion. He also condemned the killing of the United
Nations staff in response. In addition, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on
freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of
racism sent joint communications about those incidents.

Qur'an burning

    Pastors Terry & Sapp hosted a moot trial of the Qur'an, conducted in Arabic and spanning four hours prior to the burning.  The trial included a qualified Imam and several expert witnesses, at least two of whom are converts from Islam to Christianity.  Why would they find the Qur'an "guilty" of inciting violence?

    The violent reactions did not result from the trial & burning of the Qur'an, they resulted from rabble rousing Imams spewing hatred at Jumah Salat.  Check out the day and time of those riots. They occurred after Friday prayers. 

    UN staff had nothing to do; no connection to the trial & burning of the Qur'an in Florida.  There is no logical relationship between the two acts.   Peoples and societies are divided by the belief of some that they have a divine obligation to conquer the rest.  What did Allah & Moe say that might give them that conceited idea?

    Qur'an burning is an act of outrage, not intolerance.  The Qur'an does not tolerate the existence of disbelievers. Our right to live and worship as we choose or not is the primary issue at stake.  Islam's canon denies those rights, inciting outrage which is expressed by incinerating Qur'ans. 

    The trial & burning of the Qur'an was not condoned by Christianity, it was performed by two pastors and their congregation.  They burned the book which curses them, condemns them to Hell and commands Muslims to wage war upon them. 

    ¶79 is an obvious demand for legislation to prohibit criticizing Islam & burning Qur'ans.  It blames the innocent for the independent criminal actions of the guilty.

81. General Comment No. 34 recognizes that “freedom of opinion and freedom of
expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person ...
they constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society”. It
further recognizes that “freedoms of opinion and expression form a basis for the full
enjoyment of a wide range of other human rights”.
82. The General Comment also expounded the extent of lawful restrictions that
can be imposed on the right to freedom of expression, prescribing that any
restrictions to freedom of expression must be compatible with the strict
requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The General Comment also deals with the relationship between
articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
prescribing that “a limitation that is justified on the basis of article 20 must also
comply with article 19, paragraph 3”. On this point, it underscores that “it is only
with regard to the specific forms of expression indicated in article 20 that States
parties are obliged to have legal prohibitions”. In every other case — while the State
is not precluded in general terms from having such prohibitions — in which the
“State restricts freedom of expression, it is necessary to justify the prohibitions and
their provisions in strict conformity with article 19”.

    I do not see any sign that Ban Ki-moon shares the opinion of the committee of experts who composed Comment 34. 

88. The Special Rapporteurs emphasized the principle that individuals rather than
religions per se are rights-holders. Whereas the debate concerning the dissemination
of expression which may offend the adherents of religions or faiths has throughout
the past 12 years evolved around the notion of “defamation of religions”, they
welcomed the fact that the debate appeared to be shifting to the concept of
“incitement to national, racial or religious hatred”. In his thematic report at the
sixteenth session of the Human Rights Council,3 the Special Rapporteur on freedom
of religion or belief noted that school education could and should contribute to the
elimination of negative stereotypes, which often poison the relationship between
different communities. He stressed that such negative stereotypes had particularly
detrimental effects on minorities and with regard to religious or belief communities.
The Special Rapporteur highlighted the importance of eradicating stereotypes and
prejudices that constitute the root causes of fear, resentment and hatred in order to
prevent violence and human rights abuses.

    I presented sufficient evidence to establish the fact that Islam is not defamed by describing its jihad imperatives & promotion of war through carrot and stick doctrines.  If a Muslim goes to war, he goes to Paradise; if not, he goes to Hell.  Stating this fatal fact is not defamatory because it is truthful, based on Surah At-Taubah 38-39 & Surah As-Saff  10-13.

    At the time of its publication, Ban Ki-moon described Fitna,  Geert Wilders' short documentary exposing the nexus between the Qur'an & terrorism as "hate speech" & "incitement".  It is the Qur'an, not Fitna which constitutes "hate speech" & "incitement" to hatred and violence. 

Negative stereotypes

    If a Muslim is a believer, he "fights in Allah's cause", "killing others and being killed".  That definition of believer is contained in Surah At-Taubah 111.  Muslims are commanded to "Obey Allah and the Messenger". Allah commanded them to fight us until only Allah is worshiped; until we are subjugated and submit to extortion.  Are they then Muslims who sit at home?  Surely they are hypocrites, not believers who are only those who join the jihad.

    Allah said "Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much. " How is a Muslim to obey Moe without emulating his exemplary conduct?  What did he say about how he was made victorious?  How did Allah make him wealthy??

    You can not be Muslim without being evil. That is a fatal fact, not a negative stereotype. Allah commands obedience, which he rewrds with gardens flowing with rivers of wine and punishes with the fire.  What did he command Muslims to do?  Was there something about cutting off our heads, fingers and toes?  8:12

    What did Moe do to the men and adolescent boys of the Banu Qurayzah?  He besieged them for two weeks, when they surrendered he slaughtered them in beautiful downtown Medina.  How in Hell does a Muslim obey Allah and his Messenger without engaging in terrorism & genocide??  This is a fact, not a negative stereotype.  "It is not for a Prophet" that he should hold prisoners for ransom until he has made great slaughter.  This is not negative stereotyping, it is stating the fatal facts as contained in Islam's canon.   If Allah's slaves are offended by revelation of these fatal facts, they should break his yoke of slavery and rejoin the human race. 

89. The contributions received indicate that States are addressing the upsurge
in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world in various
ways. States and national actors are taking measures to combat these
phenomena and the majority of these actions are in the constitutional and
legislative domain. The principles of equality and non-discrimination as well as
freedom of religion and freedom of expression and opinion are provided for at
the highest level through constitutional enshrinement. Most States have such
provisions on freedom of expression and opinion and freedom of religion and
belief, to varying extents. Some States have prohibitions, inter alia, on the
vilification and desecration of religious symbols, sites, places of worship, and
sacred grounds. In the submissions received, there is often a concurrent
criminal regime for the prohibition of actions infringing the freedom of religion
and belief at the national level. Where advocacy and incitement to hatred is
criminalized, it is often prohibited on several grounds, including racial,
national and ethnic or religious.

incitement, intolerance and hatred

    On what day of the week and at what time of day do riots, bombing & burning of churches and the homes & business of Christians occur in Africa, Arabia & Asia?  Why on friday?  Why after Jumah Salat?  There is no innocent explanation.  What does Allah tell Muslims to do?  What did Moe do that they must emulate?  Do expressions such as "fight them until" and "be harsh against them" have any meaning for you?  Do you have a brain?  Can you obtain a clue??

freedom of religion

    Where in domestic or international law is the right to conquer enshrined?  Muslims are commanded to fight pagans until only Allah is worshiped on a global scale.  Muslims are commanded to fight Jews & Christians until we are subjugated and submit to perpetual extortion.  We must not build or repair churches, display crosses, ring church bells, hold public processions or funerals. 

    If there is no right to conquer, then there is no right to practice Islam.  Show me, by God, exactly where the right to invade & conquer is enshrined in law other than in Reliance of the Traveller, Hedaya & Risala. 

    Where in domestic or international law is the right to rape enshrined?  Show me, by God, exactly where it is written that Muslims have a right to sexually exploit capive women except in the Qur'an, hadith, and Shari'ah compiled there from!  God bless you, can you read and comprehend?  What is the meaning of this:

4:24. Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. ...

I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist." [Bukhari 5.59.459]

    Moe did not just say he was ordered to fight us, he said that until we become Muslims our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights.  Exactly how in Hell can there be a right to believe that, propagate it and act upon it?  If there is any such right, then all our rights are null and void.  It is therefore impossible that there can be any right to propagate and practice Islam. 

freedom of expression

    The first amendment to the US Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the freedom of speech.  It therefore remains legal for me to reveal the fatal facts of Islam as documented by its canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.  This is exactly what Ban Ki-moon & co. seek to outlaw.

    If we can not accurately name and describe the enemy and his doctrines & practices, then we will be rendered defenseless.  That is their objective.  If you harbor any doubts about this, crack open the Risala & Reliance of the Traveller and start reading.  If the expression "anything impermissible" is too vague for you, turn to O8.7 to see the detailed list of prohibited speech.

91. A number of other actions and measures have been highlighted in the
contributions. The importance of public education in promoting tolerance and
understanding in the public education system was noted. The value of ongoing
public awareness-raising by the State, national human rights institutions,
non-governmental organizations, faith groups and religious organizations, the
media and other partners at the national level especially was underlined. The
media has a significant role, and some contributions highlighted its use in
educating the public about different cultures and religions, in counteracting
contentious political discourse and divisive speech, and as a means for
disseminating balanced information and portrayals, as well as bringing
together groups and adherents of different religions and faiths.

    ¶91 promotes indoctrination, not education.

promoting tolerance

    What could be more  obnoxious?  How can any sentient & self-respecting lover of life & liberty tolerate the arrogant assumption of supremacism which assumes global conquest to be a divine right & mandate?  I can not tolerate that which seeks to disposses & kill me, enslaving my widow and orphans.  I can not accept any suggestion or demand that I should tolerate it. 

awareness raising

    Ban seeks to criminalize raising awareness of the existential threat of Islam.  He wants the organs of the state to spew propaganda and paint a false image of benign & anodyne religion; the polar opposite of the objective factual reality of Islam. 

balanced information

    I prefer truthful information that can be objectively evaluated and verified.  That is why I provide links to my sources so that readers can explore the context and verify the quotes.  Allah said "fight them"; Moe said "I am commanded to fight".  Moe fought in 17 battles and ordered about 60 more in which he did not directly participate.  Sahih Bukhari's books of Jihad & Expedition describe the circumstances of some of those battles.  The book of Khumus describes how Moe divided the loot.  Tafsirs confirm the obvious meaning of Allah's jihad imperatives. Shari'ah codifies what Allah said and Moe did.  Africa, Arabia, half of Asia and South East Europe were not conquered by a "religion of peace"  Peace has no part in barbarian conquest.  This subject matter requires truth,  not not malignant malarkey. 

External references cited in the report:

• A/66/251
• 65/224
• ICCPR Art. 27
• HRC resolution 16/18
• 65/138
• ICCPR  Art. 19 & 20
• Draft Document Durban Review Conference
• Human Rights Committee  General Comment No. 34
• OHCHR expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred
• A/HRC/16/53

Sphere: Related Content

Elimination of Religious Discrimination

Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief

A/C.3/65/L.32  is a draft resolution assigned to the Third Committee of the General Assembly. Dated October 28 '10, it takes the form of a six page pdf file. Like most UN resolutions, it begins with boilerplate references to previous resolutions & reports.

    On the second page, they get down to details, where I find the first clash with reality.

Considering that religion or belief, for those who profess either, is one of the fundamental elements in their conception of life and that freedom of religion or belief should be fully respected and guaranteed,

That would be fine if all systems of belief were anodyne. But one of them is not; it commands its votaries to engage in genocidal conquest until the entire world is subjugated to its will. How can there be a right to sustain and propagate a belief that one has a divine mandate to terrorize and conquer everyone who does not share your exact system of belief and ritual practice? 

Reaffirming that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, which includes the freedom to have or not to have, or to adopt a religion or belief of one’s own choice, or to change one’s religion or belief, and the freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest one’s religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance,

The elements of choice, abstention & change all conflict directly with Shari'ah. Allah said, in 3:85, that only Islam will be accepted. Shari'ah requires that apostates be executed.

Expressing deep concern at all forms of discrimination and intolerance, including prejudices against persons and derogatory stereotyping of persons, based on religion or belief,

Exactly what are they concerned about?  The expression is ambiguous, I presume that the ambiguity is deliberate. We can safely assume that it is a reference to linkage between Islamic terrorism and Muslims; a hint at "profiling".

Convinced of the need to address the rise in various parts of the world of religious extremism that affects the rights of individuals, the situations of violence
and discrimination that affect many women and other individuals on the grounds or in the name of religion or belief or in accordance with cultural and traditional practices, and the misuse of religion or belief for ends inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations and other relevant instruments of the United Nations,.

What is "religious extremism" and how does it affect the rights of individuals? Is it a reference to the Taliban beating women who do not wear the hijab?  Is it a reference to Muslims burning churches and murdering Christians in Indonesia and Egypt?   What religion is "misused" and by whom?

    They love ambiguity. This gem is found on the third page, headlining an enumerated list.

Underlining the importance of education in the promotion of tolerance, which involves the acceptance by the public of, and its respect for, diversity, including with regard to religious expression, and underlining also the fact that education, in religion or belief, as well as violations of freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief; particular at school, should contribute in a meaningful way to promoting tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief,

If that is not a demand that schools be used to indoctrinate students with false hagiography about Islam, for the sake of fostering "tolerance"  then what is it? 

Stresses that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief applies equally to all persons, regardless of their religions or beliefs, and without any discrimination as to their equal protection by the law;

That includes belief in the supremacy of Islam, and the divine mandate to enforce it upon the entire world through terrorism. No thanks! I can't tolerate that!

Emphasizes that, as underlined by the Human Rights Committee, restrictions on the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief are permitted only if limitations are prescribed by law, are necessary to protect public  safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, are non-discriminatory  and are applied in a manner that does not vitiate the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief;

How would that be applied to Reliance of the Traveller, o11.5?

Also emphasizes that freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression are interdependent, interrelated and mutually reinforcing, and stresses further the role these rights can play in the fight against all forms of intolerance and  of discrimination based on religion or belief;

That is a convoluted way of asserting that my right to truthfully reveal the damnable details of Islamic doctrine & practice is subordinated to the Muslim's right to believe that he has a divine mandate to kill me, rape my widow and sell my orphans into slavery.  Neither that belief nor its implementation can be tolerated. Both conquest and the implied restriction on free expression violate my fundamental freedoms.

Recognizes with deep concern the overall rise in instances of intolerance  and violence, including by non-State actors, directed against members of many religious and other communities in various parts of the world, including cases  motivated by Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia;

That is an obvious attempt to paint an image of balance, when it is clear that the real concern is only about intolerance of Islam. They do not give a damn about the Christians being repressed, beaten, burned out and murdered in Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, Indonesia & Pakistan. 

Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audiovisual or electronic media or any other means;

In a pig's eye!  They do not condemn the Quran'ic verses which command Muslims to wage war on polytheists,  Jews & Christians: 8:39 & 9:29,  The Islamic states would never tolerate that well deserved condemnation!  Instead, they condemn the Motoons which exaggerated Moe's status as a terrorist and Fitna, which exposes Islamic incitement of violence. 

 Expresses concern over the persistence of institutionalized social intolerance and discrimination practised against many on the grounds of religion or belief, and emphasizes that legal procedures pertaining to religious or belief-based groups and places of worship are not a prerequisite for the exercise of the right to manifest one’s religion or belief, and that such procedures, when legally required at the national or local level, should be non-discriminatory in order to contribute to the effective protection of the right of all persons to practise their religion or belief, either individually or in community with others and in public or private;

When Muslims celebrate Eid by slitting the throat of a goat they shout "Allahu Akhbar!"; they are practicing their religion. When Moe invaded the Khaibar Oasis, shouting "Allahu Akhbar!, he was practicing his religion. [Sahih Bukhari 4.52.195]  When terrorists slit the throats of Flight 93's crew, shouting "Allahu Akhbar!, they were practicing their religion.   Sacrificing a goat is one thing, we can tolerate that; sacrificing humans is another, intolerable practice which must be condemned and proscribed.  

    Allah tells us that he purchased the Muslims so that they fight in his cause, killing and  being killed. [9:111].  Allah also tells us that Islam is inseverable, it must be accepted as a package deal, all or nothing. [13:36]  By what sleight of hand can the practice & propagation of Islam be considered tolerable? 

 Emphasizes that States have an obligation to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish acts of violence against persons belonging to religious minorities, regardless of the perpetrator, and that failure to do so may  constitute a human rights violation;

Who will go to Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan & Sudan to enforce those violated human rights? 

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;

This tenth item on page  three of the draft is the most egregious offense to truth, logic and common sense.  They flatly declare that Islam must not be equated with terrorism when terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam.  How in Hell can there be a right to engage in terrorism??? Examine the clear evidence open upon the face of authentic Islamic texts. [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). 
• 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.
  • 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, then he said that he cast terror, resulting in the death of male defenders and the enslavement of their women and children. Moe said that he was made victorious by terror.  It is clear for all to see: terrorism is a foundational sacrament of Islam; yet the UN denies the well documented connection. 

    The eleventh item in the enumerated list contains a lettered list; item h & i are  egregiously outrageous.

To exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights  law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and protected in a non-discriminatory way, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration and destruction and to bring to justice individuals responsible for committing acts of desecration or destruction;

One word in that list is sufficiently broad to encompass all criticism of Islam: "symbols".  The clause clause including it will be used to criminalize any and all negative mention of Allah, the Qur'an, hadith, Shari'ah and Moe. 

(i) To ensure that, in accordance with appropriate national legislation and in conformity with international human rights law, the freedom of all persons and members of groups to establish and maintain religious, charitable or humanitarian institutions is fully respected and protected;

One phrase in that list is sufficiently broad to erase laws prohibiting financial aid to terrorists: "charitable or humanitarian institutions". This returns to President Obama's promise to facilitate payment zakat.  It ignores the fact that Islamic law requires that one eighth of zakat must be paid to those "fighting in Allah's cause".

Sphere: Related Content

UNHRC US Delegation Reveals Treachery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Sphere: Related Content

The High Commissioner's Big Lie Part 2

A press release from Eye on the UN brought a new UN disinformation campaign to light: Anti-racism conference outcome document – what it actually says. [All font attributes in the quotations were added by the author for emphasis and clarity. All links within the quotations, with the exception of the quote from Wikipedia, were added by the author.]

Concerning “defamation of religion”, there were concerns that the outcome document would introduce such a concept and threaten freedom of expression. The document does no such thing.

It unequivocally reaffirms the positive role of freedom of expression in the fight against racism, while also deploring derogatory stereotyping and stigmatization of people based on their religion or belief, as manifested in Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and anti-Arabism.

The outcome document also launches a process to examine how the prohibition of incitement to hatred, a well-established concept as reflected in Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has been implemented in various parts of the world.

Prohibition of incitement to hatred & violence would require the banning of Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & Jurisprudence.Since the UN and its appendant bodies are dominated by the OIC and its dhimmis & allies, such a ban will never happen.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is to organize a series of expert workshops on the legislative patterns, judicial practices and national policies in the different regions of the world on the subject in order to assess the level of implementation of the prohibition of incitement.

It is true that “defamation of religion” does not occur in the text of the outcome document. But the demon is in the details.

12. Deplores the global rise and number of incidents of racial or religious intolerance and violence, including Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and anti-Arabism manifested in particular by the derogatory stereotyping and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief; and in this regard urges all the UN Member States to implement paragraph 150 of the DDPA;

150. Calls upon States, in opposing all forms of racism, to recognize the need to
counter anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and Islamophobia world-wide, and urges all States to take
effective measures to prevent the emergence of movements based on racism and discriminatory
ideas concerning these communities;

13. Reaffirms that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; reaffirms further that all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offence punishable by law, in accordance with the international obligations of States and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression;

This statement: "advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement", is not so narrowly construed as we are expected to assume. This fatal fact is established by the spew from the Secretary General in his irresponsible condemnation of Fitna, the short subject by Dutch M.P., Geert Wilders. Fitna juxtaposes verses of the Qur'an with their real world application from Kutbah to resulting riots. The video quotes Islam's canon of scripture along with excerpts from video recordings of Kutbah and images of resulting riots. The only expressions of hatred or incitement contained therein are those of Islam's demon and his acolytes. Read what Ban Ki-Moon said about it.

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.”

According to the Secretary General, accurate quotation of the Qur'an is hate speech; accurately depicting Muslim clerics screaming for blood is incitement to violence, not protected by freedom of expression.

The draft of October 9 '08 contained three insertions of “defamation of religion”. While the phrase was deleted, the intention of the authors remains unchanged.

The outcome document contains 79 references to "racism". We must not ignore the implied meaning of that word. The following quote is from the Preliminary document of the African Regional Conference Preparatory to the Durban Review Conference [Emphasis added.]

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

The emphasized phrase conflates objections to Islam's supremacism, triumphalism, aggression, genocide & terrorism with racism.

30. Welcomes the important role played by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and all other relevant special procedures and mechanisms in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and calls on States to cooperate fully with these mechanisms;

A/HRC/7/19, the report submitted by Mr. Doudou Diène, Special Rapporteur 02/20/08 contains 7 references to "Islamophobia"

Efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are encountering a number of serious major challenges manifested by the following worrying trends, details of which are given in this report: erosion of the political will to combat racism and xenophobia, as shown by the non-implementation of the Durban Programme of Action; the resurgence of racist and xenophobic violence; the growing political trivialization of racism and xenophobia, demonstrated by the spread of racist and xenophobic political platforms and by their implementation through government alliances with democratic parties; the ideological, scientific and intellectual legitimization of racist and xenophobic discourse and rhetoric, which favours an ethnic or racial interpretation of social, economic and political problems and immigration; the general increase in manifestations of racial and religious hatred, and also religious intolerance, reflected in particular in manifestations of anti-Semitism and Christianophobia and, more especially, Islamophobia; and the increasing importance in identity constructs of a rejection of
diversity and resistance to the process of multiculturalization of societies. The Special Rapporteur devotes a chapter to discrimination based on caste, which he considers to be implicit in his mandate.

To reverse these worrying trends, the Special Rapporteur is continuing to promote, in all his activities, the development of a dual strategy: political and legal, on the one hand, aiming to arouse and strengthen the political will of Governments to combat racism and xenophobia and enabling States to acquire the legal and administrative instruments for this purpose, in line with the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; and cultural, intellectual and ethical, on the other hand, targeting the root causes of those trends, in particular the value systems which legitimize them, the identity constructs - including the writing and teaching of history - which support them, and the rejection of diversity and multiculturalism which sustains them.

6. The growth of incitement to racial and religious hatred and the resurgence of manifestations of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and, more particularly, Islamophobia are other particularly worrying trends. They can be attributed to the following: conflation of race, culture and religion; intellectual and ideological questioning of religion; the imbalance between the defence of secularism and respect for freedom of religion; and the supervisory and security-based approach to the practice and teaching of Islam. A particularly worrying element resulting from these developments is the selective and political interpretation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, manifested inter alia by the ideological pre-eminence of freedom of expression over the other freedoms, restrictions and limitations embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

54. Throughout his term of office, the Special Rapporteur has highlighted one of the central causes of the resurgence of racism and its increasing complexity: the conflation of racial, cultural and religious factors. He has consequently paid special attention to the increase in anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Christianophobia, and hostility to other spiritual and religious traditions. His most recent report on combating defamation of religions,11 which was submitted to the Human Rights Council at its sixth session, must be seen in the context of his earlier reports to the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of Muslim and Arab peoples in various parts of the world, in which he stressed the violence and attacks targeted on their places of worship,
cultural centres, businesses and property following the events of 11 September 2001.12 His report entitled “Defamation of religions and global efforts to combat racism: anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia”13 confirms this worrying trend.

One quote stands out like a sore toe; lets face it directly.

A particularly worrying element resulting from these developments is the selective and political interpretation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, manifested inter alia by the ideological pre-eminence of freedom of expression over the other freedoms, restrictions and limitations embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Doudou Diène let the snake out of the bag. The authors welcome his important role. The sentence quoted above crystallizes the central concept of the document. Contrary to the dishonest statement of High Commissioner Navi Pillay the outcome document places heavy emphasis on restricting freedom of expression.

28. Reaffirms its call upon States to implement all commitments resulting from international and regional conferences in which they participated, and to formulate national policies and action plans to prevent, combat, and eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

"Racism and related intolerance" means "Islamophobia" which is a code word for any criticism of Islam. The resolution demands legislation to outlaw criticism of Islam.

39. Urges States parties to the Convention to withdraw reservations contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention and to consider withdrawing other reservations; [Link added.]

Wikipedia provides the arcane detail required to comprehend paragraph 39.

The U.S. has attached a reservation to its 1994 ratification of the treaty noting that specifically the treaty's restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly were incompatible with the guarantees of such freedoms incorporated into the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.^[20][21]

54. Reaffirms the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in line with relevant provisions of international human rights law, instruments, norms and standards;

58. Stresses that the right to freedom of opinion and expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society and stresses further the role these rights can play in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance worldwide;

Malicious malarkey!!! Malignant maundery!!! Refer to the disgusting execration of Ban Ki-Moon referenced above. The rightful role of freedom of expression in the fight against intolerance is the full and fully documented exposure of Islam's intrinsic genocidal aggression. Geert Wilders exposed it with Fitna; I documented it with http://snooper.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/fitna-supporting-documentation/ .

56. Calls on States to take effective, tangible and comprehensive measures to prevent, combat and eradicate all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

That is another thinly veiled demand for legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

68. Expresses its concern over the rise in recent years of acts of incitement to hatred, which have targeted and severely affected racial and religious communities and persons belonging to racial and religious minorities, whether involving the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means, and emanating from a variety of sources;

An obvious reference to Fitna and the Danish cartoons.

69. Resolves to, as stipulated in art. 20 of the ICCPR, fully and effectively prohibit any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and implement it through all necessary legislative, policy and judicial measures; [Link added.]

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

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

Refer once again to Ban Ki-moon's despicable defamation of Fitna previously quoted .

99. Calls upon States, in accordance with their human rights obligations, to declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form, and to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination;

That is a thinly veiled attack upon the Belgian & Dutch Freedom parties because they oppose the Islamization of Europe.

121. Commends media organizations that have elaborated voluntary ethical codes of conduct aimed at, inter alia, meeting the goals defined in paragraph 144 of the Durban Programme of Action, and encourages consultations among media professionals through relevant associations and organizations at the national, regional and international levels, with the assistance of OHCHR, with a view to exchanging views on this subject and sharing best practices, taking into account the independence of the media and international human rights standards and norms;

144. Urges States and encourages the private sector to promote the development by the
media, including the print and electronic media, including the Internet and advertising, taking
into account their independence, through their relevant associations and organizations at the
national, regional and international levels, of a voluntary ethical code of conduct and
self-regulatory measures, and of policies and practices aimed at:
(a) Combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
(b) Promoting the fair, balanced and equitable representation of the diversity of their
societies, as well as ensuring that this diversity is reflected among their staff;
(c) Combating the proliferation of ideas of racial superiority, justification of racial
hatred and discrimination in any form;
(d) Promoting respect, tolerance and understanding among all individuals, peoples,
nations and civilizations, for example through assistance in public awareness-raising campaigns;
(e) Avoiding stereotyping in all its forms, and particularly the promotion of false
images of migrants, including migrant workers, and refugees, in order to prevent the spread of
xenophobic sentiments among the public and to encourage the objective and balanced portrayal
of people, events and history;

Paragraph 144 is an obvious demand for self-censorship; note the phrases to which I added emphasis.

134. Takes note of the proposal of the OHCHR, in cooperation with regional stakeholders in all parts of the world, to organize in light of the OHCHR Expert Seminar on the links between art. 19 and 20 of the ICCPR a series of expert workshops to attain a better understanding of the legislative patterns, judicial practices and national policies in the different regions of the world with regard to the concept of incitement to hatred, in order to assess the level of implementation of the prohibition of incitement, as stipulated in article 20 of the ICCPR, without prejudice to the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Complementary Standards;

What is the big deal about the “Ad Hoc Committee on the Complementary Standards”? Its report, of course. The committee generated a proposed protocol to be added to ICERD. The protocol would criminalize “defamation of religions”, as demanded by the OIC. I am unable at present to find the text of the proposal. These references hint at it. A/HRC/10/L.8, Press Release , Joint NGO Statement.

Remember that Fitna constitutes incitement, according to the Secretary General! The outcome document repeatedly demands criminalization of criticism of Islam. Navi Pillay's assertion that the outcome document does not threaten freedom of expression is proved to be a malicious, malignant lie, obviously intended to disarm us as we seek to protect and preserve our constitutional rights. If we can not name and accurately describe the doctrines & practices of our enemy then, in the words of President Washington, ..."then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter".

The United Nations is a contributor to the problem, not part of the solution. Its leaders are liars, men and women with lofty titles and low morals. To Hell with it and with them! Instead of seeking a seat on the Orwellian UNHRC, the U.S.A. should withdraw from the UN and expel it and its appendant bodies from our territory.

Sphere: Related Content