Censorship and Libel at USC

Having read several articles asserting that Pakistan's delegate had, on behalf of the OIC, submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on Elaboration of Complementary Standards,[See also: Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document] a proposal containing the text of Ireland's new blasphemy legislation, my curiosity was aroused. I posted a blog comment expressing doubt, and disappointment that the post did not provide a link to the source of the claim. I prepared to compose a blog post about the issue, but after diligent search, I was unable to find specific information.

Serendipitous discovery of a document hosted by Article 19 has brought the truth to light, proving my assumption to be in error. I had assumed that the referenced proposal had been made previous to the recent meeting of the committee. In fact, it was submitted on October 23 and it does, in its first section, include significant text from the Irish blasphemy statute. If Irish Catholics enacted it into law, it must surely be acceptable, right? Not by my standards!

The quote below comes from page 11 of the following document: A/HRC/13/55, the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. [The link in the UN document system is broken.] Since the pdf is a scanned image, I used Softifree OCR to convert it to text. I have attempted to edit errors introduced by the conversion process but have left original spelling and syntax intact.I have added bold font emphasis to identify the purloined prose.

Friday, 23-10-2009 PM

'l`he Chair opened the sixth meeting on Friday, 23 October 2009 in the afternoon, explaining that further consultations were necessary before the Programme of Work could be adopted, The agreement to continue discussion of issues put forward in alphabetical order as recorded in the draft programme of work not yet adopted was therefore extended. Accordingly, the meeting considered the issue of "discrimination based on religion or belief."

c) Discrimination based on religion or belief.

Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, made the following proposal of text:

1. States Parties shall prohibit by law the uttering of matters that are grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents to that religion.
2. States Parties must enact legal prohibitions on publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults, or uses offensive language on matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings, with the aim of protecting their fundamental human rights.
3. States Parties shall prohibit public insults and defamation of religions, public incitement to violence, threats against a person or a grouping of persons on the grounds of their race, colour, language, religion, nationality, or national or ethnic origin.
4. States Parties shall provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation, and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, and take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs.
5. States Parties shall penalize public expressions with racist aims, or of an ideology which claims the superiority of or, or which deprecates or denigrates, a grouping of persons on the grounds of their race, colour, language, religion, nationality, or national or ethnic origin, and enact legal prohibitions on offences in which religious motives are aggravating factors.
6. States Parties shall apply and reinforce existing laws in order to combat and deny impunity for all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes applied to them, including on the basis of religion of or belief .
   

The following quote is from page 26 of the Irish statute.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—
(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any
religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

Of course, there is a little detail which the authors do not tell us about, and which the OIC did not plagiarize: defenses to the charge.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would
find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.
(4) In this section “religion” does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

The egregious element of subjectivity stands out in both documents. How do you define and measure "grossly abusive or insulting"? How do you define, measure and establish the existence of "genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value"? How do you establish intent? Is any nation likely to include, in similar legislation, clearly defined and provable offenses & defenses?

Re-read the second item in Pakistan's list. Where did they get the notion of "negative stereotypes"? Last October, our State Department and Egypt cosponsored the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution. [A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1]

Recognizes the positive contribution that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, particularly by the media, including through information and communication technologies such as the Internet, and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can make to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to preventing human rights abuses, but expresses regret at the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and at the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children, and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content; [Pg. 7, ¶'9]

Boilerplate in previous resolutions expressed concern about "defamation". President Obama prefers "negative stereotyping" to "defamation". The OIC can reluctantly drop its demand for the "defamation" clause, Obama can claim victory, and we loose our freedom of expression.

Lets make a close examination of the proposal to censor critics of Islam.

• grossly abusive or insulting
• causing outrage
• a substantial number
• matters regarded by followers of
• any religion or belief
• sacred or inherent to their dignity
• aim of protecting their fundamental human rights
• insults and defamation
• incitement to violence
• promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs
• public expressions with racist aims

Is highly refined abuse or insult permissible under the proposed legislation? How does one determine the difference between gross and refined insult?
By what standard is outrage to be established? What constitutes a substantial number?

Sanctity is in the mind of the believers? Why is it not defined by the contents of sacred texts? How are we to know what everyone considers sacred to their dignity? In what charter is the right to be shielded from all potential offense established and enshrined as a fundamental human right?

What constitutes incitement to violence? According to Ban Ki-moon, Fitna is incitement to violence.. The only incitement in the video comes from the Qur'an and Imams. By the UN standard, exposing incitement constitutes incitement.

They are demanding that governments promote tolerance and respect for Islam, which informed and reasonable people consider intolerable because of its intolerance and violence.

How are "racist aims" to be defined and measured? Islam is not a race, it afflicts members of several races. Islam began as a manifestation of Arab supremacism.

One glaring defect stands out in the proposal: subjectivity. Muslims are set up as judge & jury; states as executioners. The offense exists because they invented it. We are guilty of it because they say we are. This is a status offense: not being Muslim.

The thirty third ayeh of Surah Al-Ma'idah lists hudud for waging war against Allah. Ibn Kathir's Tafsir defines that term thusly.

(The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.) `Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. [Emphasis added.]

If you recite a Christian creed, you are guilty of disbelief, opposing and contradicting Islam and may be sentenced to death. The OIC is demanding that the UN and its member states enforce that Islamic law against us. According to Shari'ah, as codified in Reliance of the Traveller, a dhimmi may be killed for several listed offenses including reviling Islam.

O11.10 ...-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam

What is impermissible? The list of acts entailing apostasy includes these items.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

Among other things, dhimmis are forbidden to recite scripture aloud and display crosses.

O11.5 ... -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;

The Ad Hoc Committee is expected to meet in March. We need to send a clear message of rejection to the United States Department of State. This is not an issue amenable to compromise. Our right of free expression must not be abridged! When the protocol is published, we must rise up as one with a loud voice and disrespectfully demand that the President not sign it and the Senate not ratify it.

In the meantime, lovers of liberty have another way to make a clear statement of disrespect and contempt for Islam and demanding effective protection from its evil intentions. The International Qur'an Petition puts the most important evidence before the World Court and prays for injunctive relief. Please sign it and exhort everyone you can hope to influence to sign it and share it with their friends. We must not allow the lamp of liberty to be extinguished forever.

Sphere: Related Content

Genocide Hadith Revisited Again

Censorship and Libel at USC

David Horowitz has once again raised the issue of the infamous genocide hadith which was restored to the USC 's database after he had campaigned for its removal. I have added emphasis for the sake of clarity. [An edited transcript of Horowitz's Nov. 4 speech is available, plus a video and a report of the attempts to prevent him from speaking. The speech is a very articulate appeal for free speech on campus, an extremely important issue.]

I was invited to USC to speak about this problem and specifically about an incitement to kill Jews posted on an official USC website and attributed to the prophet Mohammed. The incitement was originally posted by the USC Muslim Student Union. It was removed last spring by Provost Nicias, who called it “disgusting,” over protests from the Muslim Student Union. It was recently restored to a USC website by another campus group. When this re-posting came to my attention, I contacted USC students and said I would like to come to campus to address this and related issues. This led to my invitation from College Republicans.

What incitement?

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

That saying is part of Islam's canon of codified oral tradition, a prophecy which sets the final genocide of the Jews as a precondition for the Muslims reaping their rewards in Paradise. It is not the cry of "Itbach-al-Yahud" often heard in Islamic sermons, it is part of the basis for those sermons. Variant forms of that saying are common in Islamic literature, including the Charter of Hamas.

A variant remained in the database: Sahih Bukhari 4.52.177. Whether they are published on a university web site or not, those sayings inform us of the genocidal character of Islam. They serve to warn us of Islam's intentions. Removing them is like amputating a snake's rattles or painting a skunk's stripes, depriving us of a warning.

My principle objection to censoring the hadith is that it deprives us of a means of authenticating the evidence of Islam's genocidal character. I frequently cite that hadith, including a link to it so that readers can verify its authenticity and explore related hadith. While such sayings re removed from the web, they remain in thousands of books and articles and in the minds of millions of Muslims. Nothing is accomplished by removing one saying from one web site.

The revival of this issue can serve a purpose by affording another opportunity to reveal the evil at the core of Islam. The Qur'an includes a demonic injunction to make war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians.

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.

Now you know that Muslims are commanded to make war on Jews and that the Muslims can't enter Paradise until they finish the job. While there is plenty of antisemitism in the Qur'an, one ayeh stands out above the rest.

7:167. And (remember) when your Lord declared that He would certainly keep on sending against them (i.e. the Jews), till the Day of Resurrection, those who would afflict them with a humiliating torment. Verily, your Lord is Quick in Retribution (for the disobedient, wicked) and certainly He is Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful (for the obedient and those who beg Allâh's Forgiveness).

Ibn Kathir's tafsir of that ayeh brings a new dimension to it.

...In the future, the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa, son of Mary, will kill the Jews. This will occur just before the end of this world....

Another prophesy contains a less explicit confirmation. Read between the lines.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310:

Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.

When President Obama and others assert that Islam is a "great religion of peace", those of us who have explored its canon of scripture, exegeses, tradition & jurisprudence can use quotes from those sources to refute the lie. Instead of demanding censorship, we should be exposing the core of Islamic doctrine in the harsh light of truth. Expose Islam's violent antisemitism, don't obscure it.

Sphere: Related Content

Police Unity Tour® – We Ride for Those Who Died

As anyone who can read must know, it seems not a day goes by where we don't learn that another police officer (or more) has been killed in the line of duty. The numbers are staggering. From TexasFred comes a request to help an officer who is riding in this year's Police Unity Tour:

Dear Friend of Law Enforcement

January 15th, 2010 by TexasFred

Ladies and Gentlemen, I want to introduce you to a friend of mine, Barry Morris. Barry is a Texas DPS Trooper, a member of The Thin Blue Line and a really great guy. Below is Barry’s story and a request. If you can help him in this noble deed, please do!

Dear Friend of Law Enforcement

On the 9th day of May 2010, I will again have the pleasure of participating in the Police Unity Tour.

The Police Unity Tour is a bicycle ride comprised of hundreds of law enforcement officers from across the US and Puerto Rico. We ride from just outside of New York City to Washington D.C. The Tour acts as the kick-off for National Police Week, celebrated each May in D.C. I will be riding alongside several Texas State Troopers, who plan to make the 320+ mile bike ride in honor of all the fallen officers of the past year. This will be my 4th year on the Tour and I am very much looking forward to the ride. My wife, Gene Ann, will be participating (for the 2nd year) in the Tour as one of the many support personnel necessary to complete the Tour.

Texas DPS did NOT lose an officer to a “line of duty death” this (past) year (2009)!!! I hope and pray we continue this trend for years into the future. Since we did not lose an officer last year I will be riding in memory of Patrick Randel, the only DPS Narcotics officer to be killed in the line of duty. I have been a DPS Narcotics Officer for 15 years. In 2003 I was making an undercover purchase of crack cocaine from a dope dealer.

Unknown to me he had a gun and attempted to rob and shoot me. It was only by the grace of God that I was able to react in an appropriate manner and live through that confrontation. Knowing firsthand how dangerous an under cover officer’s job can be I have chosen to ride for Investigator Randel, who was shot and killed while attempting to make an undercover purchase of Amphetamine from 2 scumbags on 10/23/1974. I have known one of Patrick’s daughters for most of my 15 year career in the Narcotics service and will be honored to ride in his memory; each pedal stroke serves as a reminder that life is precious and should never be taken for granted.

Each rider/support member is required to raise the necessary funds for sponsorship as a requirement for participation in the Tour. The Tour’s primary goal is to raise funds for The National Law Enforcement Officer’s Memorial in Washington D.C. which is scheduled to open in 2011. As a participating officer, I am required to raise a minimum of $1,700.00 as an entry fee. In addition, my wife is also required to raise $1,700.00 for her participation in this year’s Tour. Any additional funds raised will also help cover personal travel expenses incurred to and from the ride.

The primary purpose for the Police Unity Tour, as stated on their website, Police Unity Tour® – We Ride for Those Who Died is “To raise awareness of the Police Officers who have died in the line of duty.”

The second purpose is to raise funds for the National Law Enforcement Officer’s Memorial and Museum...

Our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. Please go over to TexasFred's site here, and do what you can to help this fine officer.

Thank you.

Sphere: Related Content

Prayers For Peace, Rockets, And A New Daycare Center.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

This month has been busy for the residents of Sderot (pronounced:  STAY'rot).  Let us start with this bit of optimism.

Sderot, Israel (31.12.09): Hours before the new year, as hundreds of pro-Palestinian and Arab demonstrators gathered at the Erez Crossing chanting "Katyushas on Ma'alot, Qassams on Sderot," while Israeli demonstrators at another Gaza viewpoint a few meters away gathered together to communicate a very different message.

A group of Israelis singing songs of peace versus a group of Arabs calling for the bombing of these people.  And the idiots on the left (especially the ones in the White House, Speaker's Office and the Senate Majority Leader) all have concluded that Israelis don't want peace, only Arabs do.

And black is white, good is bad, up is down.  Nothing to see here folks...just move along.

That was the optimism.  Now for the news:

Worst Rocket Escalation to Strike Israel Since Operation Cast Lead

by Anav Silverman

Since Operation Cast Lead, over 306 rockets have been fired from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. On Sunday, January 10, Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu told cabinet ministers that he regarded the recent escalation of rocket attacks very seriously.

Rocket attack in Sderot. (Photo: Hamutal Ben Shitrit/Sderot Media Center)

"Last week 20 rockets and mortar rounds were fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip. The Government's policy is clear: Any firing at our territory will be responded to strongly and immediately."

Both Netivot and Ashkelon were hit by Grad rockets in the recent rocket escalation. On New Years' eve, two Russian-made Grad artillery rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip and struck Israel, with one hitting the southern town of Netivot, a city of about 26,000.

The Color Red system did not go off at the time of attack, and Netivot residents had no warning of the incoming rocket attack. No damages were reported but one woman suffered shock.

The last Grad rocket to strike Netivot had exploded near a synagogue nine months ago, causing heavy damage to the building.

A week later, on Thursday, January 7, a Grad-type Katyusha rocket fired from the Gaza Strip struck a field south of Ashkelon, causing no damage or injuries. Air sirens, however, did sound, sending Ashkelon residents into panic.

Ashkelon, a coastal city with over 100,000 residents, has been a target of Palestinian-fired Katyusha rockets for nearly four years.

Since the start of 2010, tens of Iranian-supplied mortar rockets have also hit southern Israel. Terrorists also fired an anti-tank missile at IDF troops on the Gaza border.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) claimed responsibility for the recent firing of the rockets.

Hamas boasted on Friday Jan. 8, that it had managed to smuggle new types of weapons into the Gaza Strip. Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, published photographs on its website of the new weapons. The weapons include missiles with a double warhead, 107-mm caliber missiles that are designed to penetrate fortified structures and a new type of armor piercing RPG missile.

Abu Ubeida, the Hamas spokesman stated that the group "has thousands of fighters and good weapons capable of harming Israel."

Former OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yom Tov Samia predicted on Sunday that another war with Hamas was inevitable.

"We are before another round in Gaza," Samia told Army Radio in an interview.

"I am very skeptical about the possibility that Hamas will suddenly surrender or change its ways without being hit much more seriously than it was during Cast Lead."

Will someone please explain the meaning of the word CEASE-FIRE to Hamas!  In a cease-fire both side stop shooting at each other.  If one side starts shooting again, then the cease-fire is over, battle begins anew.

Now for a little good news:

A new rocket-proof daycare center was inaugurated in the southern city of Sderot on December 27. The money for the furniture, equipment, and toys was donated by 13 year-old Thomas Cole of Toronto on the occasion of his Bar Mitzvah.

United Israel Appeal of Canada’s website reported that the dedication ceremony was attended by 35 members of Cole’s family, including his parents and grandparents, as well as by Sderot Mayor David Buskila, who unveiled a plaque of recognition and affixed the mezuzah together with Thomas.

The daycare center was built to withstand rocket attacks and contains three classrooms. It will serve approximately 45 infants ranging in age from three months to four years. The center will specifically serve the Reut community, a group of 150 young families who have made Sderot their home over the last decade.

Eran Shmueli-David, director of UIAC’s Israel Emergency Campaign, said that “this gift was implemented thanks to the tireless efforts of Eddy Azran, UIAC’s local coordinator in Sderot. It was his persistence and determination that pressed the municipality to open the new building as soon as construction was completed.”

Thomas Cole personally chose to dedicate the money to the Sderot Daycare Centre out of several options given to him by the B’nei Tzedek program of UJA Federation.

Read the full story here.

Young Thomas Cole of Toronto not only is on his way in life to becoming a man of good character, but has shown to the world the true meaning of becoming a man.  The unselfish giving unto others.  In Master Cole's case, his generosity will help many children to have a better life.

His parents MUST be busting at the seams with pride.

You can HELP too.  It isn't hard.  Just a few dollars can and does go a long way.  Just click here and follow the instructions.  Your donation to the Sderot Media Center will help the people of Sderot and the Western Negev.  People who have been under rocket attack for the last 9 years.

The Children of Sderot sent out messages of peace and hope.
The Children of Gaza send out rockets to destroy them.

Yet Hamas screams bloody murder whenever the Israelis strike back at them.

Not this time.

The time is coming when the people of Israel will have had enough.  When they will attack in retaliation, and not stop until Hamas is fully destroyed.  This next time nothing will be able to stop the IDF from achieving their directive.  Not the UN, not the EU, and definitely not Barack Hussein Obama.  Let Hamas and their anti-Semitic allies on the left cry all they want.  They will cry, scream, and throw a temper tantrum like they did last year.  But things are different now.  Europe is fed up with their antics.  The US isn't buying their lies.  And there will be elections this year.  Now Hamas will have to contend with that.

And the Children of Sderot truly might have a peaceful childhood.

Sphere: Related Content

Respect for Religious Differences?

The impetus for the present diatribe came from this article publiched by the U.S. Mission tyo the UN in Geneva.
Promoting Respect for Religious Differences By Suzanne Nossel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of International Organization Affairs.

Our government is engaged in subtle, highly polished dissembling. In order to point out the clever lies, I have reproduced excerpts from the article in block quote format, with Helvetica or Arial type face, interspersed with my commentary. I have added bold font emphasis to make the lies easier to spot.

Take a close look at the title of the article, in bold blue text above. Do you spot the lie? The article is about a counter proposal offered as a substitute for the OIC's campaign to outlaw criticism of Islam. It is not about respecting differences, it is about respecting Islam. When the differences between Christianity and Islam are considered, the differences are so stark that respect is impossible.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, sent to save sinners through acceptance of God's grace. We believe that he was crucified, died and was resurrected. Muslims believe that Isa, their name for Jesus, was fully human, Allah's slave, not God's son, was not crucified, neither died nor resurrected and will return as a genocidal warlord who will lead the Muslim army in its final conquest, exterminating the Jews. How in Hell can any sentient person exepct us to respect that blasphemy? The details, for those who don't know, are documented in The Defamation of Jesus Christ.

Over the last decade, we have witnessed a campaign to attempt to counter religious hatred through bans on speech under the rubric of prohibitions on the “defamation of religions.” This effort has taken root in a series of resolutions at the U.N.’s General Assembly in New York and its Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Far from attempting to counter religious hatred, the OIC, as the representative of Islam in the absence of a Caliphate, is acting out religious hatred by attempting to impose Islam's blasphemy law upon the entire world through the agency of the United Nations. Religious hatred is not the issue. Defamation is not the issue. Proscribing defamation by law would not reduce hatred in any case, it would only cause it to fester. Take a close look at Islamic law, quoted from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.

• O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
• -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
• -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
• -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
• -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

• -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

• -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

• O11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

• -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

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

The penalty for apostasy is death.

• O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
• O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

The code in O11.10 refers to the treaty of protection afforded to conquered Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians who, as an alternative to conversion to Islam, make annual payments of tribute and exist under conditions of humiliation & subjection. When a dhimmi violates those rules, the caliph can kill him at will.

Islam's Hellbent determination to impose its blasphemy law on us is not about defamation, it is about supremacism. Islam claims to have a monopoly on divine truth, all else is false. They are attempting to impose through "international law" what they can not yet impose by force of arms.

Some U.N. member states supportive of these resolutions are banding together to try to impose a global ban on offensive speech in the form of a binding instrument under international law.

Any criticism of Allah, Moe & their doctrines & practices is offensive to Islam. The prime examples they cite are the Motoons and Fitna:. Although the most famous of the cartoons depicts an explosive device, which Moe never had in his possession, he was, by his own admission, a terrorist.

The irony of this effort is that the concept of “defamation of religion” has been used to crack down on religious minorities that espouse beliefs deemed by the State to defame a national or majority-supported religion. Moreover, many of the countries that support the defamation of religion apply the concept to protect one religion only, and are — within their own countries — accepting of hostile language and acts that target minority faiths.

Irony? No, that is the intended result, not a misapplication. Defamation of Islam is a shibboleth created for political purposes, not a real and substantive issue.

These contradictions demonstrate that the drive to impose a global ban on offensive speech will not protect members of all religions on an equal basis, as U.N. resolutions and international legal norms must do. Nor will they address the specific and legitimate concerns about the treatment and mistreatment of Muslim minorities globally. Concerns about the treatment of Muslim minorities warrant concerted action on the international stage, but through steps and measures that actually work, rather than bans on free speech.

Equality of application would not make Islam's blasphemy laws acceptable. If you shield Judiasm, Christianity and other religions from criticism along with Islam, you still make it impossible to accurately identify and characterize the implaccable foe who has declared and is prosecuting war against us. Had Hitler declared Mein Kampf to be divine revelation and National Socialism to be a religion, we would not have been able to use those propaganda posters in WW2 under the proposed regime. The intent is, that in George Washington's words: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”[http://www.georgewashingtonsociety.org/Mission.html]

What legitimate concerns? We have laws against assault & harassment. It is not Muslims who are being murdered, raped, tortured and burned out of their homes, businesses and churches in Egypt,.Indonesia & Pakistan.

It is not mythical assaults and murders they seek to prevent, it is revelation & recognition of the truth about Islam: that it is a war cult which seeks to destroy western civilization and plunge the world into theocratic tyranny. Measures to promote that objective are undesirable, whether or not they are effective.

The United States has worked strenuously to oppose defamation-based approaches on the basis that they are inconsistent with fundamental freedoms of speech and expressions, including the values endorsed by U.N. member states through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The United States has given lip service to the concept of freedom of expression, but, in October of '09, the State Department co-sponsored the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution, which substitutes "negative stereotyping" for "defamation", a distinction without a difference.

As an alternative to the efforts that would ban speech in order to prohibit “defamation of religion,” we are proposing to achieve the goal of promoting religious pluralism and acceptance of religious difference through the kinds of steps that we have seen be effective in our own country and across the globe: enactment and enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination; bans on hate crimes; education, training and dialogue to promote religious tolerance.

Get a clue.

• 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
• 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

Islam's scripture says that we are going to Hell and curses us in addition to declaring perpetual war against us. Religious pluralism? Acceptance?? In your dreams!! Why would anyone desire to promote tolerance of a "religion" which sanctifies and mandates genocidal conquest & terrorism? Tolerance must be reciprocal; Islam is not tolerant. The two ayat quoted above prove this fact without any room for doubt.

Islam is a predator; We are prey. For the sake of safety, we must be allowed to truthfully discuss Islam. The Ad Hoc Committee will meet again in March.. We do not know how long it will take them to produce their protocol to ICERD, but I have no doubt that, barring a miracle, President Obama or his successor will sign it and the Senate will ratify it.

Sphere: Related Content